Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — Wales

Unemployed Persons

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales by what amount unemployment in Wales has increased since May 1979; what is the current total of unemployed; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): Before I answer the hon. Gentleman's question, I should say that I understand that the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Alec Jones) is in hospital. I am sure that all hon. Members wish him a speedy recovery from his illness. I express that wish on behalf of these Benches, and I welcome the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) to the Opposition Front Bench for the first time.
Between May 1979 and November 1980, the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted and excluding school leavers, increased by 42,600 to stand at 123,900.

Mr. Jones: Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that those figures are now very menacing? Is he prepared to introduce any new urgent measures to halt the runaway

rise in unemployment? Given that we have already lost 7,000 steel jobs this year, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that fierce resentment was experienced in my constituency when it was discovered that another 1,000 steel jobs were to go at BSC Shotton? What will he do in order to pump new jobs into my stricken area?

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) knows that dramatic moves will not create jobs overnight. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Rhondda made that same point at the conclusion of an article in today's issue of the Western Mail. As the hon. Gentleman knows, his area has been given the maximum incentives possible under regional policy. There has been a major construction programme. Only today, I announced additional expenditure of £720,000 on urban programme projects. Of that sum, £176,000 additional expenditure has been approved for authorities in North-East Wales. That is one of many components in the package of measures that we are introducing. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the BSC's plan. However, he will know that for some time coking coal has been piling up in the area, and, therefore, the announcement was not entirely unexpected.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Despite the world recession, are not some industries showing signs of growth? Does not the best hope for Wales lie in attracting those industries? If we wish to promote Wales, would it not be of enormous help if the Labour Party were to associate itself with my right hon. Friend's efforts to portray Wales as an area that is ready to accept change, however painful the consequences?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Indeed, he may have observed that there are representatives of six American companies in Wales. They are looking at specific sites and contemplating investment. They have made it clear that membership of the European Community is a major factor. No greater damage could be done to Wales than if people were to believe the threat that Britain might leave the European Community. The other major handicap is the image that is presented of Wales as an area of decline and industrial disruption.

Mr. Alan Williams: I thank the Secretary of State for his good wishes, and I associate this side of the House with the good wishes that he expressed to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones). We wish him a speedy recovery.
Unemployment is bad in Wales now, but will it not soon soar above 150,000? As the Secretary of State for Industry has admitted that the Government wasted their first year in office, will not the Secretary of State offer an apology to the 50,000 Welsh victims of the Government's industrial carnage? What hope can he offer to the men and families whose lives have been needlessly wasted by a Government who have shown the blind profligacy of First World War generals?

Mr. Edwards: I notice the language that the right hon. Gentleman uses. I also note that when the Labour Party produced a party political broadcast about 10 days ago on unemployment it contained not one single sentence to suggest how it would tackle the problem, which is perhaps hardly surprising when the Leader of the Opposition saw unemployment in his constituency increase from 3·9 per cent. to 13·3 per cent. when his party was in Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are several questions on unemployment this afternoon. We shall therefore move on.

Hill Farmers

Mr. Hooson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest information he has on the net income of Welsh hill farmers; if he proposes to take any further measures to assist them; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles), my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on 28 November 1980 that, subject to parliamentary approval, the rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances would be increased by £7·50 for hill cows and 75p for hardy hill ewes. This takes fully into account conditions in the hill farming sector in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom and represents a further indication of the Government's intention to maintain the hill livestock industry, which is of vital importance to the social structure of our hill areas in Wales.
The latest net income figures for Welsh hill and upland livestock farms will be included in the annual review of agriculture White Paper to be published early in the new year.

Mr. Hooson: While the increases in hill livestock compensatory allowances are welcome and the benefits of the sheepmeat regime are beginning to be reflected in firmer sheep prices, will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the long-term decline in the profitability of hill beef? Does he accept that that is reflected in the worsening ratio of cattle to sheep in Wales, which has gone from one in 16 in 1973 to one in 20 in 1980?

Mr. Edwards: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. The beef breeding herd is still declining. Numbers are down 3 per cent. from June 1979 to June 1980. However, I believe that the recent increase in the hill livestock compensatory cattle rate and the introduction of the beef

suckler premium will provide greater incentive to beef producers to maintain breeding herds and thus arrest the decline. Both steps show the Government's determination to assist that important sector of British agriculture.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Is the Secretary of State aware that the hill farmer is dependent on the guaranteed deficiency payments for fat lamb? Is he satisfied with the present sheepmeat regime? What are his views on the clawback rule?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that the new sheepmeat regime represents a major step forward and opens up a brighter prospect for sheep producers in Wales. Discussions are still continuing with the Commission and other member States in an attempt to alleviate the effect of clawback on the variable premium on our export trade. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, special arrangements have been introduced to deal with exports to third countries, and others have been introduced to deal with some of the immediate problems. We shall continue working to iron out the inevitable flaws that are present in a new scheme of that kind.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: May I also associate my party with the good wishes sent to the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones)? Will the Secretary of State consider the variable premium for beef to ascertain whether it is adequate in view of the way that the market has been performing this year? Will he ensure that the level of variable premium set by the Government is adequate to compensate farmers?

Mr. Edwards: I shall consider the matter. The producers' returns have been supported by substantial payments under the beef premium scheme, which is £42 million in the United Kingdom, of which £1·6 million has been paid in Wales this year to date.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Does the Minister accept that there is little doubt that a further upward adjustment of hill livestock compensatory allowances will be needed two-thirds of the way through next year? Does he further accept that, unfortunately, the damage has already been done and assistance can be given only through a substantial cash injection, although the redundancies and the depopulation have taken place and we cannot rectify that?

Mr. Edwards: I certainly give no indication to the House that we can expect a further increase during the year. The fact that we have made those substantial increases in the past couple of years is an indication of support. Farmers in Wales will receive about £23 million in the coming year, compared with £19·7 million in 1980 and £14·6 million in 1979.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that we shall move on more quickly, with shorter questions and answers.

Steam Engines (Woodham Brothers Shipyard, Barry)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he, or one of his Ministers, will visit Woodham's Scrapyard, Barry, to examine the remaining steam engines still there with a view to providing finance to preservation societies for their purchase.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I understand that a working party from the


National Railway Museum, accompanied by my hon. Friend, recently visited Woodham Brothers' scrapyard to establish whether any of the engines might warrant preservation or provide spare parts. A visit by a Welsh Office Minister would serve no useful purpose because we have no funds to make available to railway preservation societies. However, the National Museum of Wales owns nine steam engines. It recently purchased a heavy goods engine from Woodham Brothers.

Mr. Adley: Nevertheless, will my hon. Friend discuss with the Wales Tourist Board, in view of the importance of railway preservation to tourism in Wales, what further help it might be able to give—not necessarily cash help—towards the preservation of those engines? Will he also discuss with the Department of Employment how the use of the youth opportunities programme could be amalgamated with efforts of groups such as the Barry Steam Locomotive Action Group, not only to help to preserve the engines but to create jobs for young people in that part of Wales?

Mr. Roberts: I shall certainly draw the attention of the board and the Department of Employment to my hon. Friend's remarks. However, I believe that assistance to the organisations concerned could be available from the National Heritage Fund trustees.

Mr. Hudson Davies: I thank the Minister for his frankness about the likely limitations of his intervention, but is he none the less aware that it is the sole surviving substantial collection of British-made steam engines in the world? Will he bear in mind that the issue is simply that of preserving the collection from the cutter's torch so that renovation can follow at a substantially later date? Will he further investigate the possibility of intervention by the youth opportunities programme, which would lead to employment opportunities in an area of high unemployment and contribute to safeguarding that important aspect of our national heritage?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should not argue a case when seeking to ask a question.

Mr. Roberts: The working party that I referred to has decided to arrange expert examination of the engines next spring, when they will be classified into those with potential for being restored to working order, those with potential for spares and those fit only for scrap. Meanwhile, Woodham Brothers has undertaken not to cut up any more engines for scrap before 1982.

Sir Raymond Gower: Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that many of those locomotives are a fascinating reminder of the extent of British achievement in the age of steam?

Mr. Roberts: I shall certainly bear that in mind.

Employment Opportunities

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the Government's observations upon the first report from the Committee on Welsh Affairs on "The Role of the Welsh Office and Associated Bodies in Developing Employment Opportunities in Wales"; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have seen and heard a variety of comment but have received no formal representations.

Mr. Evans: Does the Minister realise that the bodies that have submitted evidence—the Wales TUC, the Wales CBI, the Council for the Principality and the Welsh Counties Committee—will be disappointed at the negative response to the positive suggestions made in the Select Committee report? Will he accept that it is the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales who are selling Wales short by such a poor response to a good document and not the people who demonstrate when the Prime Minister comes to Wales protected by 1,000 policemen, but who are accused of doing so?

Mr. Edwards: I can understand that the hon. Gentleman is not pleased with the response. We shall have the opportunity to debate it.

Mr. Anderson: When?

Mr. Edwards: After Christmas. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Select Committee demanded substantial additional sums of public expenditure without attempting to cost them in any way. Nor did it fully work out the implications of the programme for the rest of the United Kingdom. The Government of the day are bound to take those considerations into account.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not Rent-a-mob in Cardiff but the steel workers of Wales who can give effect to one of the most important recommendations in the Select Committee's report—namely, that steel making should remain in Wales—and that they can do so by proving their record within the next six months?

Mr. Edwards: An important lesson was learnt at the end of last week. Only a handful of people turned out to scream in the streets of Cardiff. At the same time, the chairman of the British Steel Corporation has made it clear that he wishes to preserve Llanwern and Port Talbot because of the effectiveness of running slim line at those two plants. That is the way forward, not the screaming hooliganism of 500 or 600 people in the streets of Cardiff.

Mr. Abse: Is the Secretary of State suggesting that more people must come out on to the streets? Is that his proposition? As he has turned down the Select Committee's criticism on the failure to have any contingency plan when the 11,000 redundancies were declared, what contingency plan has he now got to meet the possibility that MacGregor has indicated that Llanwern and Port Talbot could be at risk in six months? Does he intend to sit like a hypnotised rabbit, as he did before, waiting for these dangers, or has he any plan except the passive attitude that he and the Prime Minister have continually adopted towards Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I note that the hon. Gentleman is doing everything that he can to incite disruption in the steelworks in Wales. I also noted with a good deal of interest the remarks by Mr. MacGregor on television on Friday that the one thing that would finally ensure the closure of any individual plant would be if industrial disruption occurred and wrecked its performance. I can think of no worse service to the steel workers or the people of Wales than the kind of incitement to which the hon. Gentleman has given cause.

Mr. Alan Williams: Does not the Secretary of State realise that an important opportunity has been missed? Is he not aware that the frustration that was generated in


Wales by his contemptuous dismissal of the first report makes more difficult the work of those of us who are genuinely trying to keep protest on a constitutional basis in Wales? It is no use the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is incitement if we alert him to the danger that exists. Does not his entirely negative response confirm that the Committee was, as we feared, set up as a sop to the people of Wales and was not intended to be a real challenge to the Welsh Office? When may we have a debate as a matter of urgency, not at some general time "after Christmas"?

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in saying that we contemptuously dismissed the report. We agreed with about one-third of the conclusions in the report, or they have already been implemented or overtaken by events. Undoubtedly, the members of the Committee seemed to visualise a rainbow with a crock of gold at the end, presumably from England, because there is nowhere else from which the resources could come. There must be a limit to the resources that the Government can inject into any part of the United Kingdom. The Government, in their first two years, are spending over £300 million on job creation schemes of one kind or another in Wales.

Steel Industry

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of Wales what representations he has made to the chairman of the British Steel Corporation to ensure that in preparing his corporate plan he takes account of the consequences for coal and other related industries if Port Talbot or Llanwern steel plants were to close.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am sure that the chairman of the British Steel Corporation is well aware of the possible impact of any reductions in steel-making capacity on coal and other industries in South Wales.

Mr. Powell: Is the Secretary of State for State aware that in Wales over the weekend it was suggested that the MacGregor plan was a deliberate attempt to escalate unrest and uncertainty within the industry and to create strike action to give the BSC the excuse that it needs to liquidate the corporation? Does he still share the opinion of TINA—that there is no alternative? Is he aware that in Wales he is now referred to as Nick the Ripper, the industrial rapist of Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I note with more respect than I have for any comment made by the hon. Gentleman the comment made by Mr. John Foley, one of the leaders of the steel industry in Wales, who on Friday said that the plan will mean that Wales will remain one of the great steel-producing areas of Western Europe and that the industrial base has been protected. It should be of some importance to the hon. Gentleman that if the plan goes through many coal mines and jobs in coal mining in Wales will be preserved. Indeed, there will be an increased take in coal if the plan goes through at Llanwern.

Sir Raymond Gower: Contrary to the views expressed by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), did not many of the trade union leaders who were quoted over the weekend express relief that the proposals were not more damaging than had been expected.?

Mr. Edwards: It is too early to make a final assessment of the proposals put forward by the chairman

on Friday. Ministers will be meeting the chairman later this week to discuss the plan in detail. The Government have not reached any formal conclusions on it. If the plan goes through on the present basis, Wales will remain a major steel-producing area. The chairman appears to be showing that he recognises the contribution in terms of increased efficiency that has been made at Llanwern and Port Talbot and is seeking to build on that early success.

Dr. Ifor Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that the corporate plan includes a devastating reorganisation of the Velindre plant, which is related to Port Talbot, and that the proposal has been received with incredulity having regard to the high efficiency and the low costs of that plant? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that no decision is taken on this matter until full consultations have been held with those concerned?

Mr. Edwards: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has already told the House that it is unlikely that the Government will be announcing any conclusions on the plan until the end of January. Conservative Members have in the past few days argued that time should be given for consideration of the implications of the plan, but the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues seem to want to rush into debate before we have had time to read the plan in detail.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is not this a unique opportunity for the House to stress the almost unhoped-for possibility of saving a large portion of the Welsh steel-making capacity if only we can transcend party quarrels and encourage both sides of the industry to get on with the job?

Mr. Edwards: The central feature that emerges from the corporate plan is the chairman's determination to restore the BSC's place in the market, to win back its market share and to sell more steel. We should be getting enthusiastic support for that constructive approach from the Opposition Benches and not snide criticisms trying to score cheap political points.

Mr. Coleman: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that within the MacGregor massacre there are 1,700 reasons why West Glamorgan county as a whole should be regraded as a special development area? Will he represent this now to his right hon. Friend and restore to the county the means whereby its future prosperity can be assured?

Mr. Edwards: I recognise that any changes that result from the BSC plan will require urgent further reconsideration of the development area status of the affected part of Wales.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the Secretary of State accept that, while we are glad that Margam and Llanwern were not axed, we note that they have been given only six months in which to secure their survival? Does he realise that the 5,000 redundancies that were announced are an acceptable further blow to an already tottering Welsh economy? Is he aware that the 20 per cent. increase in the value of sterling under the Government has been a major factor in the loss of home and export markets and that the BSC has not been helped by the recent mini-Budget, because the extra national insurance contributions for employers and employees can have only a deflationary effect and add to the domestic recession, while the 2 per


cent. cut in interest rates has not helped sterling and has been yet another example of the Government's doing too little far too late?

Mr. Edwards: Every comment that the right hon. Gentleman has uttered seems to be self-contradictory. He is arguing, apparently, that there should not have been an increase in the national insurance surcharge. But if that had not been done we would have had a higher public sector borrowing requirement and it would have been even more difficult to bring down interest rates. One lesson that we all ought to have learnt in recent years is that it is not within the power of Governments effectively to control the exchange rate.

United States-owned Companies

Mr. Best: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the second survey of "Operating Conditions in Europe Experienced by United States-owned Companies: Wales" (the Maynard report), published in September 1980.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: This survey gives a very encouraging picture of American companies' experiences in Wales in terms of productivity, labour relations and other factors. Its message needs to be widely publicised.

Mr. Best: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the summaries of the report was that labour relations in Wales were better than was expected? Will he urge the Wales TUC and Labour Members to make sure that that reputation is not impaired? Will he particularly urge Labour Members not to engage in party politics in the House just for the sake of cheap headlines but, particularly in the next six months, to give support, rather than criticism, to the Government and the BSC in the hope that more jobs will be saved rather than lost?

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend is right. The consultants said:
Industrial relations without exception are much more constructive than might be imagined from many reports in the media.
The record of those 100 companies is outstanding. Most have single-union structure plants and their performance compares with that of plants anywhere in the world. The sad fact is that that is too little known, and the false description put about by Labour Members is doing grave damage to Wales.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that numerous major American multinational companies, such as Standard Telephones, Monsanto Chemicals and Black Clauson, have been settled happily in Newport for many years and enjoy good industrial relations? Is he aware that what we need from the Government is extra money for the preparation of new sites so that we can encourage more firms to come to our area?

Mr. Edwards: I confirm what the hon. Gentleman says about the record of those companies. A number of significant overseas companies are looking at the possibility of setting up new plants in his area. I hope that before long we shall have some further good news for him.

Development Board for Rural Wales

Mr. Geraint Howells: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any further plans to give financial aid to the Development Board for Rural Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Government's expenditure plans include provision of about £6 million a year at 1979 survey prices for the Development Board for Rural Wales, as stated in Cmnd. 7841. I expect the board's resources for 1981–82 to total £8·2 million at November 1980 prices. As the House will be aware, the Industry Bill provides for the board's financial limit to rise from £40 million to £100 million.

Mr. Howells: Is the Secretary of State aware that in many parts of rural Wales the unemployment rate is higher than in other parts of Wales? For example, in Cardigan, Llandysul and Lampeter it is 18 per cent. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Government policies are having disastrous effects on the Welsh people and the nation? What plans has he to try to alleviate that position?

Mr. Edwards: As part of the programme being financed by the funds that I have announced, there is a substantial factory building programme in the areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred and in other parts of rural Wales. The board is having considerable success, even during these difficult times, in filling those new factories.

Mr. Delwyn Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the gratitude of the people of eastern Mid-Wales to the board for its efforts in helping us to ride out the recession? Is he aware that in Mid-Wales, in the Newtown and Welshpool area, our rate of unemployment is far below the national average? Will he assure the House that he will continue an injection of money to help the board, and Dr. Skewis in particular, to carry out its industrious work?

Mr. Edwards: I confirm that we shall continue to support the board. The fact that the Industry Bill is raising the finance limit is an indication of that support. Because the area is so attractive for people to work in and. particularly, for small units to start up in, I have no doubt that the board will continue to have success.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State tell us how the level of his funding for the board compares with the level in the year before he took office?

Mr. Edwards: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a reduction from the year before we took office. We have broadly maintained the expenditure provided by the previous Government in the PESC survey. In the previous year the Labour Government found an underspend in another Department and boosted the money for the board. We have maintained in broad terms the long-term expenditure plans set out by the previous Government.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Would it not have been more equitable and honourable if the whole of rural Wales had been included within the perimeters of the DBRW rather than a specialised and arbitrary three-fifths? If the whole of rural Wales had been included, the Government would have accepted at least one extra recommendation of the Welsh Select Committee after its long deliberations.

Mr. Edwards: The decision, arbitrary or otherwise, was taken by my predecessor, the right hon. and learned


Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who set up the board with its present boundaries. I thought that it would be wrong, at a time of limited resources, to spread the work of the board more widely because that would reduce the effectiveness of what it can do in the area for which it is responsible.

Resource Centre

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what further progress he has made in considering the proposal from the Wales TUC for a research study into the feasibility of setting up a resource centre.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am arranging to make a grant of £40,000 available to the Wales TUC to assist with this study, and parliamentary approval will be sought in the spring Supplementary Estimate for the regional industrial development (Wales) Vote.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal was a most interesting suggestion from the Wales TUC, which deserves every commendation? Will the Welsh CBI be asked to co-operate in some way?

Mr. Edwards: I congratulate the Wales TUC on its constructive suggestion. In these difficult times it seemed to be a proposal which deserved a response, and I am glad that we have been able to make funds available. The study is also likely to get support from the Welsh Development Agency. It is a feasibility study, not a long-term programme. We shall have to see what the results are. I do not answer for the CBI.

Dr Roger Thomas: We welcome the Government's response, even though it is particularly belated, to the setting up of a resource centre. Unfortunately, during the nine months that have elapsed since the TUC first mentioned the proposal to the Welsh Select Committee—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even Front Bench spokesmen must ask questions and not make statements.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that during the nine months since the proposal was first mooted by the Wales TUC unemployment in Wales has escalated by nearly 40,000?

Mr. Edwards: Of course I am aware of the unemployment figures, but they make the scheme more, not less, desirable. I am glad that we have been able to find the resources for the study to go ahead. I note that the Wales TUC has given a far less grudging response than has the hon. Gentleman.

Steel Industry

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has had any recent discussions with the chairman of the British Steel Corporation concerning reorganisation proposals.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have had discussions with Mr. MacGregor on a number of occasions recently, and his officials and mine keep regularly in touch.

Mr. Hughes: The Secretary of State cannot afford to be complacent when another 5,000 steel jobs in Wales have gone. Does he appreciate that Llanwern and Port

Talbot have merely been reprieved, not saved? What the Government should be doing now is reflating the economy and discarding their outdated witch-doctor economic theories.

Mr. Edwards: Llanwern and Port Talbot have been reprieved—if that is the right word—because of their performance in recent months and their response to slim line. I understand that the chairman is saying that their future survival will depend on the continuing competitiveness and success of their operations.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware, particularly in view of his cheap and snide remarks earlier about my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), that if the plans go forward there will be in the Blaenau-Gwent area an escalation of unemployment from the present 17·1 per cent. to over 21 per cent.? Does he not agree that that would be totally unacceptable? What does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Edwards: I do not think that it is cheap or snide to remind the House that when the Leader of the Opposition, who is the Member of Parliament for the area, was in Government unemployment rose from 3·9 per cent. to 13·3 per cent. in his constituency. That shows that there are no cheap and simple solutions to the problems. The right hon. Gentleman failed to find them, and I do not pretend that they can be found overnight. There is a massive programme to attract industry to the area, and it is meeting with some success, despite the bad image that so many people put about.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman stop hiding behind Mr. Ian MacGregor and the Secretary of State for Industry and tell us precisely what his role is in discussions, what input the Welsh Office has to the BSC strategy, and whether he will be involved this week in the ministerial discussions?

Mr. Edwards: The first meeting that Mr. MacGregor is having with the Government to discuss his corporate plan is on Wednesday, when he is meeting my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Industry, the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Scotland and me to present the plan in detail. That is the first meeting. I shall be at it.

Cervical Cytology

Mr. Coleman: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many cervical screening tests have been carried out for women in Wales during the period October 1979 to October 1980; and if he will list the age groups for whom this facility is available.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Statistics on cervical cytology tests are collected annually. A total of 126,150 tests were carried out for women in Wales during 1979. Tests are not restricted to particular age groups, but the present policy is that routine screening for cervical cancer should be offered to women older than 35 and those who have had three or more pregnancies.

Mr. Coleman: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the recent "TV Eye" programme which dealt with the subject and laid great stress on the fact that women in a much lower age range than he has just mentioned are seemingly more at risk? Will he encourage


the extension of such testing to that age range and dismiss any suggestion that the service should be curtailed or even wound up?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is right in that the standard mortality figures suggest that cancer of the cervix is an increasing problem. Screening gives the opportunity to arrest the disease at an early stage. The present policy is to offer routine screening to women who are thought to be at high risk. The risk categories will be examined when the committee on gynaecological cytology has reported. Over half the tests carried out are for women under 35. The present screening policy will be reviewed in the light of the committee's recommendations.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Is the Minister aware that, according to the latest medical statistics, more positive results are being shown in women under 35 than women over 35, yet general medical practitioners are not paid for carrying out the examination on women under 35?

Mr. Roberts: The first step is to examine the present policy on screening in the light of the committee's conclusions. Then we can see what changes, if any, need to be made.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give an assurance that the rate support grant distribution formula in Wales for 1981–82 will give adequate weighting to the additional cost of maintaining services in rural areas, particularly those with very sparse population.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I shall be announcing the Welsh rate support grant settlement to the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance tomorrow, and it would not be appropriate for me to announce details in advance of that meeting.
I shall also be making a statement in the House on both the rate support grant and housing finance tomorrow.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Secretary of State aware that over the past four years the county of Gwynedd has lost £4 million in the needs element of the rate support grant, the biggest proportionate loss of any county in Wales? That has squeezed very hard the level of services in Gwynedd and has forced the county to cut out any waste that could be cut out. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind in the rate support grant to be announced tomorrow and give an assurance that there will not be a squeeze that leads to even further reductions in services or an unacceptable increase in the rate level?

Mr. Edwards: What I can assure the hon. Gentleman is that the grant-related expenditure assessments have been made in full consultation with the Welsh Counties Committee and the Council for the Principality, and all these factors have been taken into account.

Mr. Best: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Gwynedd certain staff savings have been made, which are to be welcomed, and the position is now such that old people's homes may well have to be closed? Will he pay particular attention to the problems of rural areas in North-West Wales and make sure that such closures can be averted if possible?

Mr. Edwards: I am making a statement on these matters tomorrow, and I cannot anticipate what I shall say then.

Mr. Alan Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the prophecy made by the financial adviser to the Welsh Counties Committee that, on the basis of the figures for the rate support grant determination that were widely forecast in the press this weekend, the domestic rate in Wales will rise by 30 per cent. and the non-domestic rate will rise by 22 per cent.? As the rate support grant position is so important to those of us in Wales, shall we have an opportunity to question the right hon. Gentleman in the House before the recess?

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman has apparently not been listening. I have just said that I shall make a statement in the House tomorrow, so he will have the opportunity to ask questions. Forecasts of rates are worthless, because the rates will depend entirely on the individual decisions of local authorities.

West Glamorgan

Dr. Ifor Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to visit West Glamorgan to examine at first hand the present industrial situation in that area.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have at present no plans to do so.

Dr. Davies: When the right hon. Gentleman does visit West Glamorgan and meets some of the new industrialists in the valleys, particularly the Lliw Valley and Pontardawe Valley, he will be told of their concern about the future as a result of the downgrading of development area status. Having regard to the Velindre announcement, will he now reconsider urgently designating the whole of West Glamorgan as a special development area?

Mr. Edwards: I simply repeat what I told the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) earlier. We have said that we shall keep these questions under review. Clearly, as the situation may change in that area, further thought must be given to the representations that have been made.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as a result of the British Steel Corporation reorganisation plans for tinplate, unemployment in Llanelli could well rise to 15 per cent.? How much higher does it have to go before the right hon. Gentleman gives us back development area status and special development area status, which he took away?

Mr. Edwards: I have already said twice this afternoon that the changes taking place in that area will have to be considered and that the Government will review the development area status of the areas most affected by the changes.

Mr. Alan Williams: How does the Secretary of State explain the fact that, with half the unemployment in West Glamorgan concentrated in Swansea and with the percentage of unemployment being only 1½ per cent. below that of Port Talbot, which is a special development area, Swansea not only is not a special development area but is not even a development area? Indeed, it is ranked in the lowest tier—an intermediate area.

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, because he was present at a meeting when


these issues were discussed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, that the changes in development area status were made when those were not the figures. We have said that if the position changes permanently we shall reconsider the grading. I have already given three undertakings this afternoon that that is exactly what we shall do.

Mr. Anderson: But these gradings have been considered, reviewed and monitored since July of last year. Will the Secretary of State go further and say that because of the disproportionate effect of the corporate proposals on West Glamorgan—which has roughly half of the total Welsh job losses—he will be geared to making an immediate announcement if, by the end of January, the Government endorse the recommendations of Mr. MacGregor?

Mr. Edwards: The corporate plan was presented only on Friday and has not yet been considered by the Government. The details of the plan and its consequences for regional policy are matters that the Government will be considering urgently in the coming weeks.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Wales—unwittingly, perhaps—misled the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman wait 10 minutes and raise his point of order at the end of Question Time?

Later—

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At Question Time, on the very important subject of the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on the matter of unemployment in Wales, the Secretary of State indicated the likelihood of an early debate in the House after Christmas. In fact, a letter which I received today from the Leader of the House states:
There is little prospect of timetabling a debate on the Floor of the House in the first few weeks after the recess",
and it suggests that such a debate should be in the Welsh Grand Committee. I believe that it is right that the House should have this on the record formally and express its dismay and disgust at the way in which it is treated.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) will not expect me to comment any further on his point of order other than to say that I was generous and that I realised that he wanted to get his point on the record.

Industrial Archaeology

Mr. Adley: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is satisfied with the priority accorded to industrial archaeology within the framework of the national heritage.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): Yes, Sir. The claims of industrial archaeology are given careful consideration by those concerned with the protection and preservation of the national heritage, who include the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend tell the House to what extent the National Heritage Fund is available for industrial archaeology in general and for relic preservation

in particular? Will he recognise the value of the efforts of thousands of volunteers who are standing ready and willing to get to work on restoring, for example, the steam engines at Barry in South Wales, if they can be saved from the scrapyard?

Mr. Macfarlane: Yes, I acknowledge and pay tribute to the many thousands of people who help in this way. The National Heritage Memorial Fund was established to provide financial assistance for the acquisition, maintenance and preservation of land, buildings and objects of outstanding historic or other interest. That includes items of industrial archaeology.
I am pleased to say that there will be a further examination, in the spring of 1981, of the locomotives in question. The expenses of this survey will be shared between the National Railway Museum and the interested preservation groups.

Mr. Hudson Davies: Is the Minister aware of the dramatic work that is being carried out at present by the Wales Tourist Board, the National Coal Board and the National Museum of Wales to open the big pit, as it is called, in Blaenavon in Gwent as an industrial attraction for tourists? Will he, in discussion with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, give such support as he can to this important venture in our industrial heritage?

Mr. Macfarlane: I am well aware of the many initiatives which have been taken in recent years, and also in recent months, to develop and preserve these areas and interests of outstanding national importance. The hon. Member's views will be conveyed to those who are interested.

Mr. Viggers: Will the Minister pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy for preserving so well much of the naval industrial architecture in the Gosport and Portsmouth areas against the day when it will be possible to open up the area as more of a tourist centre?

Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend's question underlines the policy that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster wishes to pursue of taking museums and areas of outstanding interest into the region so that they can attract a great deal of tourist interest. In addition to the one that my hon. Friend has mentioned, I suggest that there is a great recognition of the work which has just been done at RNAS Yeovilton, and the expansion and opening of the Mountbatten museum earlier this year.

Films

Mr. Dormand: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to increase the appreciation of films.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Leader of the House of Commons and Minister for the Arts (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The British Film Institute is the instrument by which the Government promote film as an art form, and I have already announced that I am proposing an increase in its grant from £5,750,000 in the current financial year to £6,400,000 in 1981–82, which is an increase of 11 per cent. I have also agreed to give The Guardian lecture on "The place of film


and television in the Arts" at the National Film Theatre on 3 February 1981. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to the lecture.

Mr. Dormand: The last part of the Minister's answer is a contribution to my concern about the film industry. Is he aware that the cinema still attracts more people than any other entertainment, that its general standards continue to be low and that the Government's contribution, in spite of the increase which has been given, is negligible? Does he agree that two circuits dominate the market and that this is not only unhealthy but contributes to the present state of affairs? Will the Minister for the Arts support the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in investigating the position in order that independent producers and independent cinemas can play a much larger and more effective role?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Matters concerning the commercial side of the industry are not for me; they are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I am responsible for the film in so far as it is an art form. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is an extremely important art form, not least because it attracts so many young people. That is why we have managed, by arrangement with the British Film Institute, to increase the grant for film production by £¼ million this year.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would encourage a greater appreciation of films as an art form if he could encourage the television organisations to show their better films slightly earlier in the evening? At the hours at which they are shown at present, no one who does an honest day's work is up to see them.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My hon. Friend speaks for himself. For most hon. Members, their time for watching television is late in the evening. It depends whether one is a lark or a nightingale.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that, while there is this division in Whitehall between one aspect of film production and another, it behoves him not just to make sure that there is more money for the British Film Institute but to make sure that there are jobs in the industry for people when they come out of the training course? Will he have urgent talks with the Home Office to see whether he can do something about getting a real contribution from the television industry for the showing of films?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: One of the difficulties is that the responsibilities for the various aspects of film and television are split between different Departments. I shall have words with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Meanwhile, I shall do all I can, as I am doing, to support the film as an art form, which is my responsibility.

Information Storage and Retrieval

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement about his duties in the field of informatics and telematics.

Mr. Macfarlane: My right hon. Friend has at present no specific duties in this area. However, our responsibilities for the British Library and the public library service give us a strong interest in developments in information storage and retrieval.

Mr. Price: Does the Minister recall that when his right hon. Friend came to the Select Committee he said that he might be a very good lead Minister in these matters? Can he give us any guarantee that the expertise which exists in the British Library in these matters will be put to the full use of the Government and the new Minister in charge of these matters? When does the Chancellor's Department intend to reply to the Select Committee's report on these matters?

Mr. Macfarlane: I am aware of the dialogue and the exchanges which took place when my right hon. Friend appeared before the Select Committee. That report is still being considered, in consultation with my other right hon. Friends who have interests in this area. The British Library is well aware of its responsibilities. My office is discussing with it some of the implications of the Select Committee's report, and the library advisory council will also be looking at the role of the British Library.

Public Lending Right

Mr. Viggers: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many authors are expected to benefit during the first full year of operation of the public lending right scheme; and what is the average amount expected to be paid to each.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: For planning purposes, it is estimated that up to 50,000 authors may register an entitlement for PLR during the first year. It is impossible to say what the average entitlement is likely to be since it will depend upon the eventual number of eligible authors, the number of times their books have been borrowed and the amount available in the central fund for distribution.

Mr. Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend remember that when I last asked a question on this general subject, in June of this year, he was able to announce that he was cutting the administrative cost of the public lending right by about one-half? Is he aware that many of us think that about £⅓ million is still too much? Is there any chance of a repeat performance from him?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We have cut the adminstrative cost right down to the bone, but we are always willing to look to see whether there can be further economies before the scheme is laid before Parliament, which will be early in the Session, I hope shortly after we return from the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Rhodes James: I declare an interest as an original supporter of the Public Lending Right Act 1979, as my right hon. Friend knows. Will he recognise that the awards to authors from the scheme will be extremely meagre and that either the scheme ought to be entirely re&-vamped or he should review the position, if he is seriously interested in authors having a real reward for their sales?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I disagree entirely with my hon. Friend. The scheme represents a major breakthrough in principle and the recognition of a right in authors. That we cannot devote a large sum of money to it is regrettable, but I believe that the authors will benefit. What is important is that the right has at long last been recognised.

Immigrants (Medical Examination)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the report of Sir Henry Yellowlees on the medical examination of immigrants. I have today placed copies of the report in the Vote Office. The conclusions covering the matters that led my predecessor to institute the review were announced on 13 November.
At this stage, I wish to comment on only one aspect of the report, which, I stress, makes proposals of general application. Paragraph 5·7 recommends that, in principle, all immigrants coming for settlement should be required to pass a medical examination in their country of origin. The report recognises, however, that there are strong arguments against applying such a recommendation to the spouses and dependent children of people settled in this country. I am persuaded by these arguments and, therefore, I do not propose, as a result of this report, to make the entry to this country of the spouses and dependent children of those settled here dependent on the passing of a medical examination.
I shall consider carefully the remainder of the report and its implications for medical care and public health together with my right hon. Friends the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I first thank the Home Secretary both for the publication of the report and for his statement upon it today? I hope that the full report can be considered as part of the debate that the House must soon have on the general subject of immigration control.
Dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's statement today, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Opposition support without reservation his judgment that spouses and dependent relatives of people settled here have an inalienable right to enter this country and that that right cannot be removed or diminished for any reason? Having supported the right hon. Gentleman fully on that, may I ask him three other specific questions about the report?
The first question deals with one aspect that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention. May we take it for granted that gynaecological examinations, which many of us believe should never have taken place, will never take place again in any circumstances? Can the right hon. Gentleman make that absolutely clear?
Secondly, on the subject of testing, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Opposition Members at least remain strongly opposed to the use of X-ray examinations that, it is claimed, provide some sort of test of a child's age? The report describes such examinations as
fairly accurate and acceptably safe.
Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that such a dubious level of accuracy justifies a procedure that is opposed by the World Health Organisation? Does he not share with the Opposition the view of the British Medical Association's annual conference that it is unethical to use X-rays for administrative or political purposes?
Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what I think is contained in the spirit of his statement, namely, that the report must be considered as a whole, that only the ill-intended will seize on individual sentences and use

them out of context, and that if the report is considered as a whole it makes it very clear that immigration poses no threat to the nation's health?

Mr. Whitelaw: First, on a totally non-controversial issue, perhaps I may be allowed to welcome the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbroook (Mr. Hattersley) to his new Shadow appointment. I have no doubt that he will give me a harsh time, but I am delighted to see him in his new position.
To deal with his various questions: first, I made it clear on 13 November, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), that I accepted entirely what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I made it clear that I accepted what was put forward by my predecessor to Sir Henry Yellowlees and that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) had confirmed that.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook then asked about the X-ray examination of childern in an attempt to establish their ages. I think that we ought to consider that in the light of what is now, rightly, the attitude of everyone.
As for the third point put to me by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, of course the report must be considered as a whole. I accept fully that any statements taken out of context can only do harm. I hope that certain passages in the report will not be used on that basis.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call those hon. Members who sought to catch my eye at the end of the Home Secretary's statement.

Sir Ronald Bell: Does my right hon. Friend's statement about not examining dependants apply to children between 16 and 18 years of age whose entry is not based upon any statutory right?
When my right hon. Friend referred to spouses and dependants was he referring to those who had been ascertained already to be spouses and dependants and was he excluding medical examinations, the purpose of which is to find out whether a person desiring to come in is a spouse of a dependant?
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that what is created by statute is certainly alienable, and that there are some people who think that it should be alienated?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have tried to make it clear in my statement—and I want to repeat it because it is very important—that, as a result of this report, the entry to this country of the spouses and dependent children of those settled here will not be made dependent on the passing of a medical examination. Those heads of households here and those who expect their spouses and children to come here have a right to have that statement made to them.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate because of its importance to Scotland and to my own constituency in particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) for initiating the debate.
My area is suffering, like all areas of Scotland. Some of the employment problems are especially difficult. I am the second hon. Member with a Strathclyde region constituency to take part in the debate. In the Strathclyde region 700 people a week become jobless. In the third


quarter of 1980 there were almost 10,000 redundancies—an increase of 3,000 on the previous quarter and 6,000 more than in the same period a year ago. More than 135 jobs vanished every day in the first nine months of this year. There are now more than 144,000 unemployed persons in Strathclyde.
Those statistics are black enough, but we must remember the hidden redundancies in natural wastage and the unnotified redundancies involving fewer than 10 workers. I was sorry to hear references to the problem not being as bad as the statistics suggest. In fact, it is worse, if one takes into account the unregistered unemployed.
In September, the most recent month for which figures are available, 11,000 redundancies were held in abeyance by the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. In addition, thousands of people are on short-time or operating work-sharing arrangements. For tens of thousands of families throughout the Strathclyde region, the Christmas of 1980 will be the hardest in their experience in spite of the experience of others in the 1930s. There is little about which to be hopeful or confident in the coming year.
In my constituency the job crisis deepens and worsens every day. In Kirkintilloch 1,748 persons are wholly unemployed. That is 700 more than last year. That includes over 200 young people—137 boys and 95 girls. The town has to cope with a serious downturn in its manufacturing capacity.
In the past 18 months, redundancies have occurred in the foundries, the traditional industry of the town. Redundancies have occurred at Anderson Strathclyde Ltd, one of the most important employers in Kirkintilloch. The Government's policy towards the Scottish Special Housing Association, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) referred, is causing real worries. I am constantly reminded of the town's genuine fears for the future of the association's Kirkintilloch site.

Mr. Whitelaw: Following what I have said about the need to consider the report as a whole, it would be wise for me not to comment on essentially medical judgments. It is for the doctors who produced the report to comment and justify their judgments in so far as they believe it right to do so. They must stand up for their medical judgment. It is not right for me to comment on it.

Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many English people who are already concerned at the large numbers of immigrants still entering this country will be further dismayed if, as a result of the report, there is any slackening whatever in the medical standards of immigrants.

Mr. Whitelaw: I can give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance. There is no question of any slackening in medical care as a result of the report. The medical care will be exactly the same as it has always been. I do not wish to give the impression to the House and the country that there is some great threat as a result of what the report says.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern for the medical profession in relation to the use of X-rays, but will he be a little more, forthcoming about the complaint made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)? Is he aware that people already receive sufficient X-rays and rays of various types? Does he agree that X-rays should be used only for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures? Will he undertake to ensure that the present practice is stopped, because it could be positively dangerous to the health of these children?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman's remarks indicate the wisdom of my determination not to be drawn into detailed medical analyses. As a doctor, he understands these matters whereas, manifestly, I do not. It is important for me not to be drawn. We should consider all these matters extremely carefully and maintain our sensible medical arrangements. We should not be panicked by anything that is said. We should continue as before but consider carefully the various recommendations.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the exemption from medical examinations will apply only to spouses and young children—that is, those who have a right to enter this country—and not, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, to other dependent relatives?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have made it abundantly clear in what I said in the statement. I shall repeat plainly what I said. We do not propose, as a result of the report, to make the entry into this country of spouses and dependent children of those settled here dependent on the passing of a medical examination. I stand by that position.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Does the Home Secretary's statement refer only to persons coming to this country for settlement or does it have any bearing on the position of visitors? I am particularly concerned about elderly dependent visitors coming to see their children but who might have difficulty getting in.

Mr. Whitelaw: What I have said about entry is entirely connected with people coming here for settlement.

Mr. Hattersley: May I press the Home Secretary on the interpretation of the second major paragraph in his statement, which is open to a little doubt as a result of supplementary questions? It refers to the spouses and dependent children of those settled here. May we be assured that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean those already settled here and that if the few people who are allowed here as primary immigrants in future do settle, the same rule—that is, the right of their spouses and children to enter this country—will be observed as it is for people settled here today?

Mr. Whitelaw: When I use the words "settled here", I mean exactly what I say—namely, "settled here".

Housing

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I wish to inform the House of a number of housing decisions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be making a statement tomorrow. Some of the issues that I shall refer to are relevant to the recent report of the Select Committee, a response to which the Government are publishing today.
Local authorities need to know now where they stand on housing subsidies, on capital allocations for next year and on the future of the moratorium affecting this year's housing capital expenditure.
As regards public expenditure in 1981–82, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred in his statement on 24 November to a reduction of £158 million in the Department of the Environment's programmes. I intend to provide £69 million of this from housing. I wish to see current expenditure reduced rather than capital, because I recognise the desirability of investment and the need where possible to help the construction industry. Therefore, £64 million of the housing savings will fall on current expenditure and only £5 million will come from capital.
Regarding housing subsidies for 1981–82, the Housing Act 1980 leaves local authorities with the responsibility for determining their own rents, but it introduces a new subsidy system from 1 April 1981 which requires me to determine the annual amount to be taken into account as the local contribution in calculating subsidy entitlement.
Following my consultation with the local authority associations, I have now decided to set the increase in the local contribution at £2·95 per dwelling per week for 1981–82. In addition, local authorities have to meet housing costs which fall outside the subsidy system and on average these may require rent income of a further 30p per dwelling. Since local authority rents currently average no more than 6·5 per cent. of adult male earnings, I do not think that the rises that I have indicated are unreasonable. Moreover, 45 per cent. of council tenants are protected from the full impact of rent increases through supplementary benefits or rent rebates. Indeed, an estimated well over 1 million tenants effectively will face no increase in rent at all. It is also estimated that nearly one-quarter of households living in council houses have household incomes in excess of £8,000 a year.
On capital account, I have been able to provide £2,810 million at estimated 1981–82 outturn prices for gross capital expenditure on housing. I shall give the House the breakdown of this figure. The new towns will receive £118 million. The Housing Corporation will receive £491 million at outturn prices for distribution to housing associations; this is the same in real terms as this year.
I am providing £2,201 million at outturn prices for gross capital expenditure on housing by local authorities, including an allocation of £27 million for the homes insulation scheme. This is a reduction of 15·1 per cent. on this year's provision.
From 1 April, under the new system of capital expenditure control, local authorities can undertake additional spend on the basis of their capital receipts. I estimate that in 1981–82 they will be able to undertake £413 million of spending in addition to their allocations.

Two million pounds must be allowed for the administrative costs of the homes insulation scheme. The amount distributed as HIPs allocations will therefore be £1,786 million.
I have discussed the method of distributing HIPs with the local authority associations and today I am informing local authorities of their individual allocations for 1981–82. Copies of the letter to authorities and of the schedule of allocations excluding their use of capital receipts are being placed in the Library.
A number of adjustments will be necessary in the light of any overspending or underspending by authorities this year. As I informed the House on 25 November, those authorities which underspend because of the moratorium will receive additional allocations and those which overspend will have their overspending deducted. A net total of £55 million of tolerance was outside the cash limit for 1980–81 and will therefore have to be excluded from these adjustments. My Department will advise local authorities shortly how these adjustments will be made.
I should now like to deal with the moratorium itself. Following my statement to the House on 25 November, I invited local authorities to give me their latest estimates of their commitments for this year. Their figures are about the same as when I last reported to the House and show that, on their forecasts, the cash limit is likely to be taken up. The Government have therefore no option but to continue the moratorium generally, but, having regard to the size of the local authority programme, it is, in my view, possible now to permit some small relaxation without jeopardising the cash limit. I have therefore decided to allow just the underspending authorities to approve discretionary grants and loans for home improvement. Every improvement grant approved will attract an additional sum of private finance, which will be of further help to the construction industry.
I am also proposing to lift the ban on the letting of new contracts before the end of the financial year where no additional expenditure will take place until after 1 April 1981. I shall keep the situation under review to see whether further relaxations of the moratorium are possible.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: This is one of the most disgraceful and contemptible statements about housing ever made to the House—contemptible in its dishonesty and disgraceful in its content.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the moratorium on new house building and council improvement schemes is to continue indefinitely despite his own admission in the debate on 25 November that his investigations revealed that at worst there might be a net overspend of £7 million?' Is he aware that the building employers told me last week of the devastating effect that his moratorium is having on the industry, where he has already brought about unemployment of 274,000? His statement will cause even more unemployment.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he has announced is a rent increase of £3·25 a week? This makes his fraudulent consultation exercise, which caused such anger in the House a month ago, a cynical farce. The increase turns out to be even higher than the £2·50 to £3 range put forward in his consultation document. It amounts to an additional tax of £875 million on 5·5 million tenants whose average income is 24 per cent. below the national average.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has announced a housing investment programme allocation in a manner that is once again deliberately calculated to deceive the House and the country? In February, he cooked his figures to purport to show that the cut was 21 per cent. when the cut for local authorities was, in fact, 33 per cent. Today, he has presented an even more indigestible dog's breakfast by adding notional capital receipts to his actual HIP allocation and coming up with what he pretends is a 15 per cent. cut. Is he aware that his actual allocation of £1,786 million is a scandalous reduction of 29 per cent. on his miserable figure of last year, which at present is producing new starts at the rate of only 22,800?
The right hon. Gentleman's fiddling of the figures is yet another of his scandalous attempts to deceive the House—an attempt in which he has once more failed. Even worse, this massive rent increase is an attack on tenants and those in need of a home, together with the deliberate destruction of the nation's housing programme. The Secretary of State has affronted the House. He has demolished the housing programme. If he had any decency, he would resign.

Mr. Heseltine: I hope that the House will not misunderstand me if, first, I welcome the right hon. Gentleman. We have been friends since Oxford days. I hope very much that the friendship will survive the onslaught that the House has just heard. I should like, in that spirit, to help the right hon. Gentleman with some of the figures.
When I gave the House the figures for the moratorium, I explained that, at that time, if the moratorium was allowed to remain in force, there would be a potential overspend of £7 million. I made clear that 262 authorities had an underspend at that time of £124 million. If, therefore, I had released the moratorium, the £124 million would have been added to the £7 million, giving a potential overspend of £131 million. On that basis, I was left no choice but to maintain the moratorium.
With regard to rent increases, the whole House will know that the previous Government constantly stated that there was a need to keep rent increases broadly in line with earnings but failed absolutely to live up to the responsibilities of their own statement. The result was that local authorities of all parties slashed the new house building programme and the level of maintenance of existing houses seriously declined, with all the consequences of such a decline.
As to the suggestion that I have set out to mislead the House, we have discussed time and again—the right hon. Gentleman understands this as much as I—the issue of local authority starts and the programme that local authorities administer. I have given the figures to the House many times. In 1976, the number of starts in Great Britain for public sector house building was 170,000. It was down by 1977 to 132,000, by 1978 to 107,000 and by 1979 to 80,000. If that does not add up to a cut, I do not know what does.
The difficulty is that the right hon. Gentleman is now trying to rewrite history. Housing under his Administration was significantly reduced in the public sector. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. The facts are clear. I do not see what purpose is served by the Opposition constantly coming to the House and trying to pretend otherwise.

Mr. Kaufman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his congratulations and even more grateful that he proffered them to me after the Shadow Cabinet elections.
The right hon. Gentleman tries to have it both ways on the rent increases under the Labour Government. Is he aware that I for my part am proud that in the last two years of the Labour Government rent increases amounted to only 7 per cent.? I only wish that the right hon. Gentleman, instead of imposing this enormous £875 million tax on local authority tenants, would keep to the kind of rent increases that occurred under the Labour Government. Since he has been so free with his information about the number of local authority housing starts, and since he undoubtedly has the information in the Department and could not have placed the information before the Cabinet or the House without the figures, will he now give his estimate of local authority starts for 1981–82?

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman claims credit for the fact that rent increases during the last two years of the previous Labour Government rose by only 7 per cent. He is telling the House that a massive subsidy was poured into that sector of the community and paid for by others, many of whom had substantially lower incomes than those living in council houses. He has failed completely to tell the House of the public expenditure consequences of that sort of financial recklessness.
As for future estimates of council house building, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that time and again there were forecasts from the labour Government of the level of starts that the local authorities would undertake. That Government were then left trying to explain away why the authorities made different decisions. We have given local authorities discretion as to where they spend their housing capital, and that applies to the whole of their capital allocation. Having given them that freedom, it is folly for me to try to forecast how they will use it.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Secretary of State realise that the derisory relaxation of the moratorium does nothing for the many deteriorating council houses since none of the benefits of the relaxation will go to that area? Is it not irresponsible to cut the insulation grant so heavily at a time when the insulation of homes should be contributing to our energy policy? When will he show some concern for the three-quarters or more of council house tenants who do not have incomes of £8,000-plus a year and for the many more people who would like to live in council houses?

Mr. Heseltine: When the hon. Gentleman considers our treatment of housing insulation grants, he will find that the situation is better than he indicates. As for selling council houses and the impact that that may have, there is a clear understanding that there are benefits to be derived not only for indiviudal tenants but for those living in the public sector who will enjoy potentially, at the discretion of local authorties, some of the capital receipts that will flow into the hands of local authorities. Therefore, local authorities will be in a position to augment the level of their allocations for housing purposes.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the considerable number of workers and families in my constituency who are on relatively low incomes, the great majority of whom have to live in


privately rented property, who will regard his statement as an overdue adjustment in holding the balance fair between the two sectors of housing?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe that he is exactly right. The sooner that we can shift the balance of emphasis away from public consumption to public investment in housing, the better we shall be able to help both the public sector and the private sector which depend on this sort of support.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it not a fact that last year's council house building was the lowest since 1946, that this year it was to be lower still and that the level has now been halved because the embargo or moratorium will last from October to April? If that continues, it is virtually the end of council housing, on which most people depend because they cannot afford to buy their own house. I could take the right hon. Gentleman to a mother and father in my constituency who are living apart, the mother and the baby with her family and the father with his family, because there is nowhere for them to live. The Minister should resign before further disaster comes to the country.

Mr. Heseltine: I have heard the hon. Gentleman say these things many times. He fails completely to understand that I have announced that at 1981–82 outturn prices I am proposing to authorise expenditure on public sector housing of the order of £2·8 billion. Expenditure of that sort cannot be reconciled with the forecasts that the hon. Gentleman constantly makes, which are never borne out by the event.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, no matter how unpopular it may be to say it, there is an increasing number of people who have felt, under successive Governments, that the system of financing public sector housing is both unfair and increasingly ineffective? Will he therefore accept that, while some of us may be concerned about the reduction in capital expenditure on public sector housing programmes, we welcome the help that is being continued to the Housing Corporation? However, will he admit that it now becomes the Government to take an initiative in supporting and encouraging the private sector?

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. If I may say so, I pay tribute to the work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction in recasting the HIP allocation in the subsidy system for housing to give a much better and more rational balance to the way in which these programmes are administered.
The Government have carried out a thorough and comprehensive review of all the constraints that operate within the private sector to stimulate wherever we can, to remove constraints prior to the upturn in the economy taking place and to help the private sector to cope with far more of its housing needs.

Mr. Douglas Jay: How many new dwellings, public and private, does the Minister expect to be started in 1981?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows enough about housing to know that the Minister will not be starting any houses. It is entirely a matter for

the individual judgment of housing authorities, which will make their own judgments on how they use the allocations that are available to them. The right hon. Gentleman and the House understand that in recent years there has been a significant switch away from the construction of new council houses, each of which attracts over £1,000 in net loss in the first year, in favour of renovation and improvement, which reflects the deteriorating standard that has been seen in large areas of public sector housing. It must be a matter for individual authorities to exercise that discretion if the freedom that we have given them is to mean anything at all.

Mr. Den Dover: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is aware that most housing association schemes do not break even and that they need a subsidy? Does he expect, therefore, that the current levels of rent will increase over the next year or two?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that we cannot live in a society in which rates of inflation have been of the order that we have seen and expect rents to be immune from the process. The more that rents are immune, the more the quality of the housing stock will deteriorate.

Mr. Clive Soley: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is only a method of introducing hopelessness and despair to the many thousands on waiting lists, including the 10,000 in my area, who see houses standing empty and decaying and hear self-employed builders saying that they have trouble in receiving social security because their businesses have collapsed? Is that not due to his policy and the moratorium? Is it not also true that in inner city areas there is no way in which the private sector can make up the difference unless an individual is earning more than £10,000 a year?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of important issues. First, I turn to the question of waiting lists in local authority housing. I hope that he realises that on the latest evidence that I have seen one-third of those on the waiting lists are already local authority tenants seeking transfers with other local authority tenants. Secondly, he draws attention to the significant number of empty houses standing idle in various local authority areas. Many of those houses are owned by the local authorites. Better management could undoubtedly secure a higher use of housing stock. The responsibility for houses in the private sector standing empty lies with the Opposition Front Bench, which has politically frustrated every attempt to bring those houses back into the private rented sector.

Mr. Tony Durant: Some of us who are keen on insulation grants are anxious that my right hon. Friend should make it clear whether the insulation grants are part of the HIP allocation or whether they are treated separately.

Mr. Heseltine: The insulation grants are included in the HIP allocation and we are expecting to see an increase in the figures in the coming year.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call five of the Opposition Members who have been rising in their places before we move on to the next statement.

Mr. Allan Roberts: If the Minister will not give the House his own prediction of what he thinks the number of starts will be in 1980–81, will he confirm or deny the prediction made by the Select Committee on the Environment that it is likely to be 30,000 in 1981, a catastrophic all-time low? Is he aware that he seems to he the only person who is not capable of assessing what the level of starts is likely to be next year? The estimate of 30,000 is made by Shelter, by the building industry, including many contributors to CABIN, by the National Council of Building Material Producers and by the Group of Nine as well as the Select Committee. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is considered to be misleading the House by denying the facts about the likely level of starts in the next financial year?

Mr. Heseltine: But I must put the point to the hon. Gentleman again. The previous Government gave their estimates of starts and then had to come back to the House to explain why those figures were not achieved. I believe that that is more likely to be interpreted as misleading the House than telling the House frankly that this is a matter which individual local authorities must decide for themselves. We have given them much greater freedom to make these decisions, and they must now allocate their resources in the light of their own needs.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: When will the right hon. Gentleman come clean about his figures concerning the real cut in the HIP allocation for capital spending and answer the charge put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)? Furthermore, when will the right hon. Gentleman stop juggling with figures and begin to show some sort of human concern for the young couples who are forced to live apart in their parents' council houses and for many others on the waiting lists who must look to the public sector for housing since they will not be eligible for mortgages and cannot turn to the private sector in any sense? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] When will the right hon. Gentleman show such human concern? [Interruption.] They do not earn enough money.

Mr. Heseltine: I should like to help the hon. Lady. If she had been a more frequent attender at our housing debates, she would probably have heard these figures, broadly, before. But, as she has asked me for the figures—

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Shoddy little man.

Mr. Heseltine: —I am only too happy to provide— [Interruption.] I know that the Labour Party has a great difficulty. Labour Members ask for these figures, but they do not really want them because they are so embarrassing from their point of view. However, I have in front of me the figures for the years that we are now discussing. I shall willingly read them to the House, starting with 1975–76.

Mr. Ted Graham: No!

Mr. Heseltine: Oh, yes. I shall read them to the House and I shall go right through this year and next year in the same money values—1980 survey prices. The House will then be able to see, for local authority gross housing capital expenditure, what has happened since 1975–76 right the way through to next year. Starting with that year, I shall read the figures: £4·297 billion— [Interruption.]

These figures relate to the money spent at 1980 survey prices. It is very difficult for the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) to understand the significance of this.
Starting in 1975–76, the figures are as follows: £4·297 billion; next year, £3·690 billion; next year, £3·158 billion; next year, £2·759 billion; next year, £2·604 billion; this current year, £1·983 billion: and next year, £1·682 billion. That is a significant year-on-year reduction in the capital housing figure, which the Labour Party was quite happy to defend when it was in power.

Mr. Frank Allaun: The right hon. Gentleman has no feeling at all.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that there will be anger and bitter resentment from council tenants up and down the country about the type of rent increases which are being proposed by him? Will he also bear in mind that any rent rebate—and he has been misleading the House—will be on the new rent increases, so even those receiving rent rebates will undoubtedly be faced with quite a substantial increase? Bearing in mind the right hon. Gentleman's whole appalling record as the Secretary of State responsible for housing, may I ask whether he realises the amount of family misery which is being caused by the policies for which he has been responsible and which have meant the worst housing crisis that this country has faced for many years?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman talks about all this anger and bitterness, which he is so uniquely qualified to disseminate, but perhaps I may suggest that he points out to council tenants that if they have incomes of up to £120 a week and children in normal family circumstances they are likely to be eligible in the main for some form of protection from the increases about which we are talking.

Mr. David Stoddart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even ardent Tories in my constituency are now describing his housing policies as "disastrous"? Is he further aware that the housing waiting list—not the housing transfer list—in my constituency has doubled during his term of office and that council tenants who in my constituency are paying £15 a week in rent already will not be impressed by his average of £8 a week for the country?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman obviously has a greater knowledge of his constituency than I have, but I am sure that his constituents will understand as clearly as the rest of the House that unless we keep the overall levels of public expenditure under control the future outlook for his constituents will be as bad as it was under the Labour Government.

Mr. Jack Dormand: How has the right hon. Gentleman arrived at the figure of £118 million for allocation to the new towns? Is he aware that in Peterlee new town, in my constituency, one estimate for repairs and attention to houses and other buildings amounts to £40 million? Does he remember the very strong representations that were made to him by the Association of District Councils on this matter? Does he not, therefore, agree that £118 million is chickenfeed and will not meet the circumstances?
Lastly, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is not a matter for the local authorities but is a national matter and that the costs ought to be borne by the Exchequer?

Mr. Heseltine: There are two answers to the hon. Member's question. We are trying to switch the balance from public sector to private sector housing in the new towns generally. That means that we have been encouraging the new towns to dispose of land and to enable particularly starter schemes for young couples to begin there. But there is then the special problem, to which the hon. Member has drawn my attention, which arises because of the defects in past building techniques in the new towns. We are aware that there are special problems there. Conversations are due to start in the new year, and this has been made clear to the ADC.

American Synthetic Textiles (Imports)

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is on a trade visit to Spain, I should like to make a statement about textiles and clothing.
I need not remind the House of the important contribution made by the textile and clothing industries to the country's economy and the concern that this Government have for their problems. It was in recognition of this that, in addition to pressing for the strictest possible implementation of the arrangements relating to imports from developing countries, we earlier this year secured agreement of the European Community to the imposition of quota restrictions against imports, essentially from the United States, of polyester filament yarn and nylon carpet yarn. These quotas expire at the end of this year and we have been considering, in the fullest consultations with representatives of the industry and the firms affected directly or indirectly, whether we should seek their renewal.
We have had to bear in mind the effects that restrictions on these raw materials have had on users in this country and the fact that in the case of polyester yarn the Commission has now imposed anti-dumping duties on about half of United States imports of this product. We have concluded that the balance of advantage does not lie in maintaining these quotas any longer. We shall not, therefore, be seeking their renewal for 1981.
The Government are, however, extremely concerned at the damagingly sharp rise in imports of certain other United States products and the problems this creates for particular sectors of our industry, and the wider problem, which these imports in a considerable measure reflect, of the impact of United States energy policies on a wide range of British industries, though notably on the textile and clothing industries.
The issue is one that has already been taken up with the Commissioners in Brussels and our Community partners at ministerial and Prime Ministerial level. The Government feel that the time has now come for a concerted stand by the Community. At tomorrow's meeting of the European Council of Foreign Ministers, I shall therefore be seeking agreement to a common Community approach, which would, in effect, put the onus on the Americans to use some of the solutions available to them, which will avoid the need for recourse to restrictive action on our side. A faster deregulation of oil and gas prices, for instance, is clearly desirable. There is a need for United States industry to show greater restraint in pressing its present advantages.
We shall, therefore, seek a mandate for the Commission urgently to pursue discussions with the Americans over the whole range of problems and possible solutions and to report back to the Council. We shall also be seeking endorsement from the Council of a firm resolve to take anti-dumping action where this is justifiable and to impose provisional duties where the full process that would lead to final duties would take too long. A report on the outcome of the discussion in the Council tomorrow will be made in due course.

Mr. John Fraser: The statement that we have just heard will be regarded by many as an admission


of failure and a simple repetition of pious hopes. It will be greeted with dismay and alarm by many in the industry. It means, although the Minister of State used the phrase "damagingly high rise in imports," that after January 1981 we shall be impotent to deal with the threat from the United States. One is bound to conclude that the Government have given way to threats of retaliation by the Americans and have failed to get an agreement on renewal of the quota restrictions with our EEC partners. From January 1981 there will be no protection from imports of subsidised synthetic yarns from the United States.
It is all very well for the Minister to talk about strict control over developing countries, but our industry will lose thousands of jobs because of a lack of control over subsidised imports from one of the richest nations. The abandonment of the present inadequate controls is bound to give the impression that this country is a pushover whenever a country against which we have taken measures threatens retaliation. The statement contains no specific promise of action to take the place of the present admittedly inadequate quota.
Given that action through the EEC has so far failed to provide any reasonable protection against the slaughter of our synthetic fibres industry, how does the Minister expect the present initiative to succeed?
Specifically, will the Minister be pressing the Community to negotiate with the Americans under article 3 of the multi-fibre arrangement, which at least gives the EEC the right to require urgent consultation and places an equal obligation on the United States Government?
Secondly, what time limit will the Minister place on this initiative? He has had years to try to do something about it and has failed. He must realise that the survival of many plants and the continuation of many jobs depend on getting a change of practice by the American Government.
Thirdly, if the initiative fails—I hope that it does not—what action will the hon. Gentleman take? I give him one example. Over a two-year period, the import of nylon tufted carpet has increased by 921 per cent. What protection will there be if the initiative fails?
Fourthly, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he will involve the textile industry and the unions in his consultations in Europe? He referred to this aspect in his statement, but may we have a statement on the results of the talks in the Council of Ministers immediately he returns from Brussels?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) asked whether we would take action with the Americans by invoking article 3 of the multi-fibre arrangement. We propose that the Commission should go to the United States to discuss the full range of textile problems with the new Administration. We do not rule out consultations under article 3. This would be the first time, with one minor exception, that article 3 had been used between developed countries. However, we do not rule it out, and we do not wish to tie the hands of the Commission in the wider range of discussions that would be possible under article 3.
On the time limit, we would wish the Commission to report back to the February Council. If the initiative fails, we have open to us a range of options under article XIX of GATT and elsewhere. We would consider those in the light of any failure. We would press a united Council of

Ministers to give the Commission a mandate to ensure that it achieved some results. Of course, we shall keep in close touch with the industry and the unions, as we have to date.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about "dismay and alarm" in the industry at the decision. The decision has been taken after very careful consultation with the industry, and on the whole it has the industry's support.

Mr. Fraser: The Minister said that if the initiative failed he would consider quotas under article XIX. Surely, the point there is precisely that the Americans can require compensation, and if we do not give it they can retaliate. Is not that just what the Minister is running away from in making the statement?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that if we use article XIX the Americans have the right to compensation. That is why we are not going for article XIX at the moment but are taking our new initiative. The other range of possibilities will be considered if the initiative fails, but the hon. Gentleman has properly highlighted some of the problems with that article.

Mr. James Molyneux: If there is to be a time gap in the restrictions, is that not likely to be fatal for what little now remains of the Northern Ireland textile industry? Is not this yet another example of the handicaps imposed by our membership of the EEC, which effectively prevents our taking action to protect essential British interests?

Mr. Parkinson: I make no secret of the fact that we have carefully considered the problems of Northern Ireland. They constituted one of the reasons why it was with some reluctance that we decided not to apply for renewal. I do not believe that membership of the EEC hampers us in our dealing with the problems of the Northern Ireland industry. A Community-wide initiative with the Americans holds out better prospects for us all than an individual initiative by the Government of any one member State.

Mr. Donald Thompson: What other imports is the Minister thinking of in these negotiations? For instance, is he thinking of wool textiles, manufactured garments and finished carpets? Will he be pressing for a reduction in American duty rates on these goods, or some of them?

Mr. Parkinson: That is a most important point. We decided not to renew the quotas because the case for that was not, in its own right, a good one. There was another consideration. There would have been a certain loss and damage to the Yorkshire wool textile industry, because the United States Administration had already laid an order that would have taken effect from 1 January and would have resulted in damage to that industry. We had to balance the uncertain advantage of renewing these quotas, about which even the industry was unhappy, with the certain damage to the important industry of Yorkshire wool textiles—an industry that my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) very ably represents.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is very little time left to save the textile industry? This year alone, over 10,000 jobs have been lost in the West Yorkshire textile and clothing industries. Mills are closing down all the time. There is not time for the Minister to conduct protracted negotiations if he is to save what is left of this declining industry.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Lady is, in effect, saying that the non-renewal of two quotas that the industry says are of no assistance to it will undermine the textile industry. She, as a Yorkshire Member, ignores the fact that certain damage would have flowed from renewal. That is what this announcement is all about—the fact that quotas will not be renewed.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that the two orders that he is ending have certainly damaged the British carpet industry, because it has been deprived of supplies of raw material that it otherwise might have had? However, does it not follow that the British carpet industry must be protected, and as soon as the quotas are removed?

Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. and learned Friend knows, at the time when we applied for these quotas we applied for a further quota on carpets. That further quota was turned down because the import figures did not justify it. The level of import penetration of our carpet market is still less than 10 per cent. Indeed, in real terms the level of imports this year has fallen. So what was not a good case last year is no better now. But I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that if there has been a disadvantage coming from these quotas it has been for the manufacturers of carpets, who have been denied access to very competitive raw materials.

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: Does the Minister agree that in view of the likely loss of jobs—100,000 jobs have been lost in textiles and clothing this year—it is not surprising that at least the workers in the industry are bound to be concerned about any possibility of a weakening of resolve in this matter? Will the Minister confirm two points? First will he ensure, as far as possible, that the consultations begin urgently and do not await the new American Administration taking office in mid-January, which we regard as far too long a wait? Secondly, will those discussions specifically cover wool textile exports to America, and will they deal with the question of carpet imports from the United States?

Mr. Parkinson: I have just dealt with the last point in reply to my hon. and learned Friend. We believe that if there is an advantage to the Americans the major advantage stems from their dual pricing of energy. That is why, in my statement, I set such store on pressing for speedier deregulation. We think that that would be a major contribution to helping our carpet industry.
On the question of urgency, certainly we wish to get on with the consultations as soon as possible, and we shall be discussing with the Commission making a beginning on them. But I think that the hon. Member would agree that any major decisions of this kind will probably have to await the arrival of the new Administration before real decisions are taken.
On the question of wool textiles, action would have been taken against our exports from 1 January. That action will now not take place.

Sir David Price: Do I take it from my hon. Friend's statement that he and his right hon. Friends in the Government now agree with the general case made by the British chemical industry that the American energy cost and, above all, the price of their feedstock, which goes out as raw material to many industries, are below the economic level? If that is so, will he take it from me that

many of us feel that making representations to the American Administration against that uneconomic practice is better done with friends in Europe than alone?

Mr. Parkinson: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is not disputed by anyone that an unfair advantage arises from the dual pricing policy. I believe that it is better eliminated by Community-wide action and in discussions between the Commission on behalf of the whole Community and the Americans.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that hon. Members will co-operate with me if I say that I believe that all the hon. Members who have been rising have constituency interests, and, therefore, I propose to call them, but they would be fair to the House if they were brief.

Mr. Frank R. White: Is the Minister aware that, despite his opening comments, there is a real need for his Government to indicate to the industry what the Government's views are? Today's statement bears no relation to the needs of the textile industry in the North-West. It seems to accept that the industry is drowning but concludes that the answer is to remove the lifebelt in the hope that we may construct a lifeboat at some time in the future.
Does the Minister appreciate that the closure of 90 mills in our areas over the past 12 months, the redundancy of thousands of workers and the consequential problems caused to the communities need not have taken place if his Government had matched the aid given to the American, French and German textile industries? The Minister has appeared before us today as a Christmas Scrooge. He has given the textile industry in the North-West no hope whatever for 1981.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member has a very strong reputation for being an honest man. As such, I am sure that he never fails to remind his constituents that the present Government are administering a series of agreements negotiated by his own Government in 1977. Those agreements, which do not expire for another two years, dictate the limits to the action that is open to us. If there is any criticism to be made, and if the protection is not sufficient, I hope that the hon. Member will have words with his right hon. Friend who negotiated on behalf of this country.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I fully appreciate the many visits that my hon. Friend has made to textile and clothing companies throughout the Northern region, as well as the North-West, but does he not accept that our industries are facing unfair competition, that the carpet industry in particular is being almost totally detroyed, that the bedding and sheeting industry, likewise, is now severely affected and that unless an interim package can be introduced by the Government tens of thousands more jobs are likely to be lost before any agreement is made between the British Government and that of the United States under the new President, Mr. Ronald Reagan?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right in saying that there is a very great unfairness built into the American dual pricing of energy and that the elimination of that is absolutely essential. Where he and I marginally disagree in this case is that it is much easier to talk about the need


to take far-reaching action than it is to get it agreed. But he and I have the same ambition: to do the best we can for our textile industry.

Mr. Jack Straw: Is the Minister aware that in the past 18 months he has presided over the most catastrophic period that the textile industry has known in 20 years? While the industry's output remained stable throughout 1975–79, it has dropped by one-quarter over the past 15 months, 62,000 jobs have been lost and some sections, such as man-made fibres, have been so badly affected by American imports that production in this country has been halved.
Given the consequences of deregulation of energy prices for the American domestic economy, particularly for domestic inflation, what serious chance does the Minister believe that any Administration, particularly the Reagan Administration, will have to secure the deregulation of oil prices? Is not the truth of the matter that American domestic pressures are such that no President and no Administration will be able to achieve that? If that is the case, should not the Government now be embarking upon contingency plans to ensure that effective countervailing action is taken against the imports in question?

Mr. Parkinson: I said in my statement that we shall be pressing the new Administration. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I cannot predict what the policy of Mr. Reagan's Administration on energy deregulation will be. The hon. Gentleman appears to know; I do not. All that I can say is that at the moment there is an obvious unfairness, which is much resented by America's trading partners throughout the world. Unless some action is taken to remove that unfairness, further unfairness will be perpetrated to balance that and away we shall go on the beginning of a trade war. It is, therefore, in the interests of the new Administration, not only from the point of view of energy conservation but from the point of view of trade, to accelerate that deregulation. That is what we shall be pressing for.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I am to call those hon. Members who have been rising, I really must have shorter questions.

Mr. Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in the event of our failing to get agreement in Europe we shall take unilateral action to protect our carpet and chemical industries?

Mr. Parkinson: Unilateral action, although it is theoretically possible, would in fact be a way of buying short-term popularity but of doing very little good to our industry, because unless we can carry our Community partners with us they can order us to stop our unilateral action within six weeks.

Mr. Walker: It is the short answer.

Mr. Parkinson: It is not the answer. The trouble with my hon. Friend is that he always finds simple short answers to very complicated problems. The answer to my hon. Friend is that we believe that we have a strong case and we shall press it hard on our partners.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: Is the Minister aware of the disastrous state of the tufted carpet industry in my constituency as a result of what has happened recently? I believe that his figure of 10 per cent.

refers to the whole industry. The percentage in the tufted carpet industry is much greater. Can we expect some of the constructive Government intervention of which the Prime Minister spoke this weekend to revive that industry? Are Canadian imports also affected by the Minister's statement?

Mr. Parkinson: The answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes". They are affected. The answer to the first part is "Wait and see".

Mr. Robert Banks: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed by many companies in Yorkshire, not least ICI, in my constituency? Is he further aware that his positive initiative deserves the fullest chance of success and that that success is not made more likely by the sniping criticisms of Labour Members?

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his encouraging remarks. When arriving at the Dispatch Box, Trade Ministers rarely expect compliments from either' side of the House, and we are all the more grateful for them as a result.

Mr. Thomas Torney: Is the Minister aware that textile workers in my constituency are looking at the situation with despondency, not despair, because the industry has been falling apart for years, due to unfair competition? It is ridiculous for the hon. Gentleman to talk about a concerted stand by the Community, because the Community will block any agreement on textiles in the same way as the French have done on fish. That is no consolation for my constituents who are unemployed or who are likely to become redundant in the next few months. Will the hon. Gentleman for God's sake take unilateral action in order to stop these unfair imports, and will he also subsidise our industry?

Mr. Parkinson: The answer is "No". I should point out that Community policy on textiles is supported throughout the Community. It is a Community-wide one. It was because we acted as a unit that we were able to obtain such a reasonable MFA last time. It is quite wrong to think that there is hostility to textiles everywhere in the Market except here.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend realise that a report issued today by the Local Authorities Textile Action Group, which represents 15 boroughs in the North-West, including the boroughs of Bury, Blackburn and Hindburn, as well as Preston, states that the United States threat, to which my hon. Friend referred;
must be regarded as ultimately directed at the whole of the EEC, and requiring urgent corporate action"?
Therefore, my hon. Friend has the strong support of many people in making his statement.

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Regardless of the effect of the announcement on the rest of the United Kingdom, is not the Minister aware that it will have a devastating effect in Northern Ireland? He said that the situation in Northern Ireland had been taken into consideration, but I do not think that he has given it enough consideration. The textile industry is now the basis


of the Northern Ireland economy. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman ought to look at the Northern Ireland scene and give it special consideration.

Mr. Parkinson: We gave careful consideration to the problems of Northern Ireland when coming to our decision. The basic question is whether we retain two quotas, about which the industry is divided, which have proved to be of marginal value and whether it is worth retaining something that is not making a real contribution to the industry at the certain expense of damage to other parts of the industry. We came to the conclusion that, frankly, it was not worth while, because the benefits arising from these two quotas would not really help solve the problems in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Gary Waller: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the carpet industry will greatly welcome the withdrawal of these quotas, which raised the price of raw materials and, therefore, represented the worst of all possible worlds? However, I hope that he will not underestimate the great damage that has been done to the British carpet industry by the import of American carpets, which are being advertised on an increasingly wide scale. Will he make as his absolute priority an approach to the new American Administration with a view to ending these unfair practices?

Mr. Parkinson: It is absolutely agreed that the energy price differential is the basis of the unfairness in respect of carpets. That is why we believe that a Community-wide approach to the American Government, in order to tackle the difficulty that is at the heart of the industry's problems, is the right way forward. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind opening remarks.

Mr. Harold Walker: Contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), is the Minister aware that his announcement of the abandonment of the quota will be received with dismay by the workers at ICI Fibres in Doncaster? If thousands of jobs have been lost in the nylon fibres manufacturing industry, with even the limited protection that has so far existed, how much worse will the position be as a result of the complete abandonment of the quota in the period leading up to what the Minister hopes will be a meaningful dialogue with the Americans? Will the nylon carpet fibre industry survive that period?

Mr. Parkinson: I do not think that that issue would be settled one way or the other by the retention of these quotas, which is precisely why we decided not to renew them.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the 18 months that he has held his job one in five textile workers in my constituency has lost his? In the discussions with our Community partners, which will begin tomorrow, how will he quantify the effect for us if there is no joint Community initiative? What are the likely effects on the textile and chemical industries in terms of further unemployment?

Mr. Parkinson: A reply to that question would require the possession of an extremely accurate crystal ball, which I do not have. We intend to make a strong case tomorrow, because we believe that the action that we are proposing will be of much more value to the industry than any other action that we could take.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Everyone agrees that there should be effective EEC pressure. The hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) is quite correct, but people in Lancashire feel that the action has not been effective. Therefore, will the Minister at least tell the House what time limit he has in mind in respect of these negotiations? In fact, time is not on the Minister's side, nor is it on the side of the Lancashire textile industry.

Mr. Parkinson:: We recognise that this is an urgent problem. That is why I said that we expected a report back to the Council by February.

Mr. William Whitlock: Is the Minister aware that there is a fear that out of the discussions between the Commission and the new American Administration there will emerge some kind of package deal, which will be marginally helpful to some parts of industry and absolutely disastrous to others—in other words, a smelly curate's egg?

Mr. Parkinson: I can only hope that the hon. Gentleman's prediction is wrong.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 6(6), proceedings on Private Members' Notices of Motions shall, if not previously concluded, lapse at Seven o'clock or three hours after they have been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Jopling.]

Scotland (Government Policies)

Mr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, That this House deplores the fact that over a quarter of a million people are now registered as unemployed in Scotland; and calls for the implementation of policies which will secure an end to the hardship and misery caused by this tragic waste of human resources.
I hope that there is no disagreement in the House about the seriousness of the current unemployment situation in Scotland. More than one in eight of all males in Scotland are at present unemployed. Indeed, unemployment in Scotland is now higher than at any time since the depths of the depression in the 1930s.
There is no consolation in the unemployment figures. I say that because at Scottish Question. Time the day after the previous unemployment figures were announced at least one Conservative Member sought to extract some consolation from the fact that unemployment in Scotland, expressed as a percentage of that in the United Kingdom, had moved favourably rather than in the other direction. In the early 1970s, unemployment in Scotland, as a proportion of total United Kingdom unemployed, fell. To an extent that was encouraging, because it reflected the creation of new jobs in Scotland, particularly oil-related employment. No consolation can be derived from the fact that during the past month unemployment in Scotland has moved in that direction. It reflects the fact that unemployment has been rising even more sharply in some parts of England. Nothing can be gained from that appraisal of the statistics.
Unemployment in Scotland is something of a disaster. We have come to accept too high a level of unemployment. That is borne out by the figures. For example, in November 1980—the most recent month for which figures are available—there were 254,000 unemployed in Scotland. Ten years ago there were just over 96,000 unemployed in Scotland. Twenty years ago over 69,000 people were unemployed and 30 years ago 60,000 were unemployed. There has been an inexorable rise in the general level of unemployment in Scotland. We can no longer accept that state of affairs.
There must be a complete change in our attitudes towards the level of unemployment that is acceptable. As far as an individual is concerned, he is 100 per cent. unemployed. In order to clear the air, I should add that, during the period of the Labour Government, unemployment was unacceptably high. I accept my full share of responsibility for that as a member of that Administration.
As a result of the worldwide recession and of the deal that the Labour Government did with the IMF, unemployment in Scotland rose. One difference between this Government and the previous Government is that, despite the IMF deal and the recession, the Labour Government strived to increase employment in Scotland, whereas this Government's policies will make the position much worse.
The present level of unemployment in Scotland is the result not only of the Government's policies but of the international recession. My prime contention is that, notwithstanding such factors, the Government's economic policies in Scotland have made the position immeasurably worse and will continue to do so until they are reversed. I refer first to the Government's basic financial policy and to their obsesson with monetarism, which has led to high

interest rates and a strong pound. The Government's policy has done immense damage to the industrial fabric of Scotland. When major proposals have been announced—whether concerning ICI, British Petroleum, British Leyland or any other major British company that operates in Scotland—the closure of productive capacity has been blamed on the over-valued pound and to some extent on high interest rates.
This weekend, the press contained reports of announcements about the steel industry. No doubt those of my hon. Friends who represent steel constituencies will speak on this issue. Many years after we first anticipated a new modern integrated steel complex at Hunterston and after the loss of many jobs in the steel industry in Scotland, is it not a reflection of how far our hopes have fallen that the Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman should talk of there being relief in Scotland because, perhaps, only 600 to 1,000 jobs will be axed in the near future? I do not criticise those newspapers. In a sense, there is relief. However, is it not a measure of the enormity of the economic crisis in Scotland that such announcements should be met with relief? There will be a further serious cut in employment.
The Government's tight money policy has done a great deal of damage to Scotland and to the rest of the United Kingdom. As a result of the Government's policy on public expenditure, Scotland has suffered severely. Whether the Government like it or not, employment, industrial investment and the Scottish economy as a whole are heavily dependent on public expenditure and public investment. The cuts have done enormous damage to the level of employment in Scotland and to the prospects of our young people.
The Minister has admitted at last that cuts are being made in Scotland's Health Service. As a result, hundreds of valuable jobs, such as those of nurses and technicians, will be destroyed. On Wednesday, the Secretary of State is expected to make a major announcement on the level of the rate support grant for the coming year. That announcement will have a significant impact on employment in Scotland. Does the Treasury have any estimate of how many jobs will be lost in Scotland for every million pounds that is lopped off the rate support grant?
The nationalised industries are very important to Scotland. In the November mini-Budget, we were told that £¼ billion would be knocked off the borrowing requirements of the nationalised industries. As yet, we do not know how real those cuts will prove. Whether we like it or not, the Scottish economy is heavily dependent on investment by the nationalised industries for the creation of productive capacity, the provision of employment and the generation of demand for goods and services from private industry. The cuts in public expenditure and public investment have made a significant contribution towards increasing unemployment in Scotland. They are harming the Scottish economy.
I turn to my constituency and to the surrounding areas. I can best make my point by drawing the Minister's attention to a headline which appeared on Thursday in the Edinburgh Evening News. The Minister may have seen it. In large black and white letters, it states:
Lost—4,000 jobs in the Lothians
The article continues:
Nearly 4,000 jobs have been lost in Lothian over the last 12 months—and another 5,000 people would have joined the dole queue if firms had not introduced short-time working.


I recognise that unemployment in the Lothian region is lower than that found in some other regions in Scotland. It is certainly significantly lower than that in South Clyde. The Scottish economy will gain nothing if the Government cut back on regional policy—as they have done—as regards Edinburgh and the surrounding area.
Last August, I initiated a debate on this issue. The Under-Secretary of State for industry justified the fact that Edinburgh had been downgraded from development area status to non-assisted area status on the ground that other areas had bigger problems. We shall not solve the rest of Scotland's problems by depriving the Edinburgh area of opportunities for industrial expansion and investment. The Edinburgh area has the potential to create employment. Many industries would expand if they received the support—which they have had in the past—not only of development area grants but also of selective assistance.
I appeal to the Minister, as one who represents an Edinburgh constituency, to reconsider the Government's decision to downgrade Edinburgh to a non-assisted area. In my constituency on the east side of the city, we have had massive job losses over the years. The previous Labour Government brought hope. Through the Scottish Development Agency we have a new industrial estate in Craigmillar, where unemployment is much higher than the Scottish average. A new industrial estate is also being developed in Musselburgh. However, our hopes of attracting industry to the factories on these new industrial estates has been dealt a body blow by the Government's decision to downgrade Edinburgh from development area status. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the Scottish Office will take on board the point that cuts in regional policy cannot be sustained with rising unemployment. The Government should reverse their decision on Edinburgh.
The Minister will doubtless refer to the special employment measures, which were first introduced by a Labour Government because of the high levels of unemployment. This Government initially cut the programme of investment in special employment measures substantially. The Secretary of State for Employment more than reversed that policy in his statement shortly after the Summer Recess. I welcome the improvements and the extension to the youth opportunities programme, which will help to alleviate the demoralisation of many of our young people who cannot obtain a job on leaving school.
However, we should keep the programme in perspective. It is no substitute for proper jobs, the regeneration of the Scottish economy and the provision of long-term employment.
In many ways, the man in his 40s or 50s suffers most from unemployment. There is much real poverty, and real hardship will increase through the Government's decision to cut benefits. Many such people find it increasingly difficult to secure alternative employment. The Secretary of State's community enterprise programme makes a totally insignificant contribution to alleviating the problem.
The best way to illustrate that is simply to look at the figures. Eventually, in 1982, 25,000 places will be provided. Scotland is unlikely to get even 4,000. If the places are allocated on a proportional basis, the number is likely to be even less. However, on the most generous interpretation, let us suppose that we get 4,000 places for

unemployed people over 18. About 67,000 people would be eligible—those between 18 and 24 unemployed for over six months and those over 25 unemployed for over 12 months. At present, over 219,000 people over 18 are unemployed, including those who have been unemployed for only a few weeks. Only two out of every 100 unemployed people over 18 are likely when the scheme is fully operational to obtain temporary benefit from a place in the community enterprise programme. The modest improvements announced by the Government are only a drop in the ocean for Scotland.
What can be done to reverse the inexorable rise in unemployment? The Government must reverse their policies. We need lower interest rates. I accept that we do not dictate the value of the pound sterling, but if interest rates were cut sharply and the Government pursued a different and more flexible policy we should probably see a reduction in its value. Even a modest reduction would bring immense benefit to industry in Scotland.
The Government must also adopt a different approach to public expenditure in Scotland. They are spending hundreds of millions of pounds of public money to maintain the vast army of the unemployed. We are asking the Government not to increase public expenditure but to divert it to new investment. They could allow the Health Service and nationalised industries to spend that money to create investment and new jobs, which would be a preferable use of our oil revenues. The Government must relax their tight grip on local government expenditure in Scotland. We must have more expenditure on the social services, which are labour intensive. Above all, we need more public expenditure in the investment programmes of the nationalised industries to increase our productive capacity and create a new demand for goods and services in the Scottish economy.
The Government must reverse their approach to energy prices. The CBI has produced a document showing how the cost of energy to industry in this country is much higher not only than in the United States, as was mentioned earlier in relation to textiles, but even than in other EEC countries. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Fairgrieve), knows that the main reason given by the management for the most recent paper mill closure in his constituency was the excessively high cost of energy. Energy accounts for about 30 per cent. of production costs in the paper and board industry. The Government can act quickly, as the CBI says, to alter their policy over gas prices and to enable electricity boards to enter into long-term supply contracts for industry at lower prices. The Government can take immediate action here and bring some relief to industry.
The Scottish Development Agency was set up by the Labour Government to spearhead the regeneration of industry in Scotland. It has a good record. I have mentioned its successes in my constituency. However, this Government have shackled it. The new guidelines hve not helped. If the Government wanted to give to the problems of Scottish industry and unemployment the priority that they deserve, they should give the SDA its head. They should not apply the rigorous guidelines that are criticised by the Public Accounts Committee for their effect on the viability and likely success of the Stonefield vehicles company. We have a crisis in Scotland. We do not have time for ideological dogma. The Scottish Development Agency can make a positive contribution to new


investment in Scotland and to providing employment for the future if it is given the necessary resources and given its head.
There is no alternative to a reversal of the Government's policies. Their economic policy has failed not only in our terms but in their own terms. The leading apostle of monetarism and Government policies in the British press is Samuel Brittan. His column in the Financial Times today makes interesting reading. It states:
Anyone who has tried to explain what has happened to the British economy in the last few months has been confronted with a puzzle. The money supply has raced ahead wildly—at about double the official target of 7 to 11 per cent. One can play about with different definitions or adjust for distortions, but it is still difficult to escape the evidence of a monetary explosion.
I could not give a damn about money supply figures, and nor could the unemployed in Scotland. However, the central objectives of the Government's economic strategy—the great magic cure-all—has been the control of money supply. On that basis, they have failed. That is one reason why they should be prepared to admit that they are wrong and to change their policies. The most important reason is the effect of these policies on the Scottish economy and on the level of employment in Scotland. There is a social and economic disaster in Scotland. Unemployment is not only at record levels but is rising sharply.
In a series of answers to questions which I tabled last week, we saw that the rate of loss of employment in Scotland had reached a staggering level. Between December 1979 and June 1980, 27,000 jobs were lost. In the previous six-month period, the number of jobs lost increased by 10,000, and during the period before that the number increased by 10,000. That rate of job loss is terrifying and shows no signs of a reversal. Thus, we appeal to the Government to change their policies.
It has not been the burden of my case to argue that the problems of the Scottish economy are all the fault of the present Government. However, in so far as both parties agree that we would like full employment, new investment and more productive capacity in Scotland, these policies have failed. We have no hope of tackling these real problems and improving the Scottish economy until the Government reverse their present economic policies.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I think that all hon. Members will want to congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on choosing this most important subject for debate and on giving Conservative Members a chance of making the point, which cannot be made strongly enough, that they feel as deeply about genuine unemployment as do Opposition Members and their supporters. At the Scottish TUC conference the other day, it was implied that some Conservatives were not so worried about unemployment. I think that we shall certainly nail that myth this afternoon by saying how deeply we in the Conservative Party feel about unemployment in Scotland.
I was sorry that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East began his otherwise moderate and interesting speech by referring to the parallel between today and the 1930s. The fact is that there is absolutely no parallel between the misery and the problems caused by unemployment today and the misery caused by unemployment in the 1930s.

Those who seek to pretend that this Government are taking us back to the 1930s ignore a whole raft of very important points.
I should like to put on record at least some of the reasons why we are not experiencing a return to the 1930s. One important reason, which is rarely mentioned, is that today there is a National Health Service, which did not exist at that time. That is an extremely important point which is too often glossed over. Secondly, today there is a comprehensive system of State benefits which cushions many people from the more savage effects of unemployment.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The hon. Gentleman is attacking that system.

Mr. Sproat: I thought that I would get some idiotic interruption from the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan). Surely, after all the years that I have been seeking to explain this point, I ought not to have to say that I attacked, and still attack, and all reasonable people attack, those who abuse the social security system, not those whom we ought and want to help. Abuses of the social security system take away money which we ought to be giving to those who are in true and real need.

Mr. Canavan: Will the hon. Gentleman admit that the Government are attacking the Welfare State by reducing the real value of unemployment benefit, and that they are therefore attacking the victims of unemployment rather than attacking unemployment?

Mr. Sproat: I do not admit that. There is no question of this Government attacking all that is good in the Welfare State. We are trying to make the Welfare State more effective.
The two points that I mentioned are so often glossed over are, first, that there was no National Health Service in the 1930s and, second, that there was no comprehensive system of State benefits.
One other important point which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East did not make in his opening speech—although I accept that he was trying to be as fair and moderate as possible—was that today, as compared with the 1930s, about one in three of those who are unemployed are women, mainly housewives. I do not seek to diminish the drop in the standard of living in a household accustomed to an income from a husband and a wife at work when the wife loses her income. However, there is a great difference between the situation in the 1930s, when every single figure in the dole queue meant a whole family in grinding poverty, and today, when a housewife finds herself out of work and the average income might be reduced from about £200 a week to about £120 a week. [Interruption.] I do not know what Opposition Members are groaning about. Those are the average figures. If Opposition Members do not know what the average figures for wages in Scotland are, they certainly ought to know. It is an important point that about one in three of those on the unemployment list are women, mostly housewives.
Another important point that ought to be made is that of the total United Kingdom figure of 2 million, and correspondingly in Scotland, about 100,000 of those on the unemployment register are people such as bank managers who have retired early and are drawing benefits of various sorts until they reach the age of 65. It is


ludicrous to pretend that retired bank managers are in a parallel position to the unemployed in the 1930s. I believe that it is a most extraordinary system that we allow 100,000—[Interruption.] The hon Member for West Stirlingshire either does not know, in which case he ought to be ashamed of himself, or he should listen.

Mr. Canavan: Get lost.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw):: Order. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) must not from a seated position shout across the Chamber. If he wishes to intervene, he must seek to do so in the conventional manner.

Mr. Sproat: I have been extremely courteous to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire. I have already given way to him once in my speech.
As I said, 100,000 of those on the unemployment register in the United Kingdom are persons such as bank managers who retire before the age of 65. That figure also includes many other people in occupational pension schemes who retire before the age of 65. It is ludicrous to say that any of those people are in the same situation as people were in the 1930s. In no way are they in grinding poverty.
Since the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned it earlier, I also point out that a substantial number of those on the unemployment list are there because they find that they are better off on a combination of social security benefits in cash and in kind plus tax-free moonlighting.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Oh, dear!

Mr. Sproat: If the hon. Gentleman wants it, I shall give him the name and address of one man, an example which will be familiar to all my hon. Friends, Mr. Thomas McIntyre of Dunoon who was reported recently in the Daily Mail as receiving about £500 a month tax-free in various benefits in cash and in kind. That gentleman does no work for that £500 a month. He can in no way be compared with those in the 1930s who desperately wanted work and could not get it.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman send the details—the name, address and family circumstances of that man—to the DHSS, because the last time he engaged in this exercise he carefully erased the bulk of the names and addresses so that they could not be identified?

Mr. Sproat: I erased the names and addresses of those who wrote to me in confidence. I am now quoting a case that appeared in the newspapers and is public. If the hon. Gentleman does not like it, all he has to do is to go to the Library and he will find it in the relevant issue of the Daily Mail. The name is Thomas McIntyre of Dunoon.
It is indisputable that in no way can unemployment today be compared with the unemployment situation in the 1930s. Anyone who seeks so to do is deliberately misleading his audience.
There was a second point that I thought was markedly missing from the speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. The hon. Gentleman talked about high interest rates, the strong pound and all the other reasons that he said various people in Scotland give as to why they are having to make employees redundant. What he did not mention, and what is rarely mentioned by Opposition

Members, is the contribution by the trade unionists, particularly the militants in the trade unions, to that unemployment. One of the ironies of political life is that particularly trade union militants and extremists who shout most loudly about unemployment are the very people whose antics most cause unemployment.
We have sad cases of overmanning, which makes companies uncompetitive, of demarcation—

Mr. Norman Hogg: Where?

Mr. Sproat: British Steel—the one company or group of companies which, above all, everybody is thinking about today. We all know that, sadly, that is one of the reasons why British Steel has become so uncompetitive. If the hon. Gentleman does not know that Toyota is five times as productive as British car companies or that Ford of Germany, using the same number of men and the same kind of plant to produce the same kind of cars, produces two to three times as many cars as Ford workers in this country, he does not know the most important facts about our industrial situation.
It is an absolute tragedy that we have overmanning, demarcation disputes and demands for wages unrelated to productivity. My hon. Friends will have seen this morning the new claim by the National Union of Seamen. It has rejected an offer of more than 10 per cent. We know that crew rates are one of the reasons why ships are either competitive or not competitive. Yet crew rates in this country have gone up by 50 per cent. compared with 35 per cent. in Germany and 15 per cent. in Japan.
If Opposition Members cannot see that the trade unions are one of the greatest causes of unemployment in this country—I do not say that they are the only reason for unemployment—they cannot see what is at the very heart of our industrial problems.
Overmanning, demarcation disputes, wages unrelated to productivity, strikes and the threat of strikes are among the most important reasons why our industry today is uncompetitive. What Opposition Members and trade unionists have to learn is that there is a law of industrial life as unbreakable as the law of gravity which says that bad industrial practices make bad products, that bad products mean no sales and that no sales mean no jobs. That has happened to this country not just over the last 18 months, not just over the last five years, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was fair enough to point out, but over the last 35 years. We have seen this country fall from being the richest to being almost the poorest country in Europe. In large measure, the trade unions—no doubt slack management and the world recession have played their part—lie at the very heart of our decline from being the richest to being almost the poorest country in Western Europe.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East concluded by calling for the reversal of Government policy and for pumping more funds into the nationalised industries. I am amazed that he should advocate the one remedy that we have seen without fail does not mop up unemployment in the long run, because we have seen unemployment rising for two decades. We certainly know that pumping more money into the economy causes more inflation. If we followed the hon. Gentleman's suggested solution, we would have not only more inflation in perhaps 18 months but more unemployment 18 months after that and we would be worse off than when we started.
The only hope for this country is to follow the policies of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We must say that we have had enough of taking the soft options for a generation and of accepting the easy answers of doling out more money, higher spending, higher taxation and more bureaucracy. Those policies have not worked. They have resulted in high unemployment in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is why my right hon. Friend must stick to her policies. I am sure that we will win through.

Mr. James Hamilton: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). Over the years, we have heard him on social security problems. I have no hesitation in saying that the hon. Gentleman has no experience of industrial areas where poverty prevails at the present time. The hon. Gentleman represents a constituency which has a certain measure of influence or affluence. Therefore, he is not fully conversant with the true situation.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the steel industry. I have a steel interest in my constituency. Only a few years ago the British Steel Corporation agreed with the much-maligned trade unions about which the hon. Gentleman talked that if manpower in the steel industry could be cut, that could solve the industry's problems. But now Mr. Ian MacGregor has come forward with recommendations for a manpower cut of 640 at Gartcosh-Ravenscraig complex. Ravenscraig is one of the most modern mills in Scotand, if not in the United Kingdom. That mill has not been afforded the opportunity to produce the tonnage that it is capable of producing. We have no doubt that the men will be determined to carry out in full everything that they said they would do three years ago.
The Government now clearly state that they want a wage freeze until July next year. Is that the proper climate in which to get workers to react favourably to all the solicitations and mandatory statements made not only by the Government but by the British Steel Corporation?
We now have the highest unemployment record since 1930. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South said that the 1930s situation had not yet been reached in 1980. I refer the hon. Gentleman to what was said by his right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who was Prime Minister from 1970 to 1974. Recently in the House the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Government were fast approaching the situation, from which they had departed in 1974, of being labelled as the party of the unemployed. That is the general consensus prevailing in the country.
It is strange that Harold Macmillan and my right hon. Friends the Members for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), all former Prime Ministers with experience of dealing with the economy of the country, have, without exception, declared that the Government's present policy will not bring this country back to a proper position. They cannot all be wrong, and they were not all Labour Prime Ministers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) referred to the youth opportunities programme. That will help some unemployed youngsters, at least for a period, but I recently met a young person who had been unemployed for 14 months. He is taking part in the programme, but when his time is finished he will go back on the dole.
It is not only hourly paid workers who are becoming unemployed. Three weeks ago, the company that I used to work for sacked two directors. Consequently, they are no longer supporters of the Government. Conservatives made a great deal of the problems of small businesses when the Labour Government were in power. They said that if every small business employed another one to five men, that would go a long way towards solving the unemployment problem. I have heard small business men using language to describe the Government that I would not use in the House or even at a football match. They are seething with anger and they claim that they were conned by the election promises of the Government.
There are three collieries—Polkemmet, Cardowan and Bedlay—producing coking coal for steelworks in various parts of the country. If there is a recession in the steel industry, it will have an adverse effect on the mining industry. One can understand why the transport workers, the miners and the steel workers have banded together. For the first time, they are determined to fight for their jobs. For far too long, trade unionists have been taking the juicy carrot of redundancy payments. They have been selling their jobs down the river, but there is a growing awareness that unless they are prepared to fight every inch of the way there will be no jobs for them.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South made some derogatory remarks about our trade unions, but I have just returned from Japan, where the shipbuilding, electronics and computer industries are all closed shops. The workers must be union members. We must pay attention to that. It is no good condemning trade unionists. If there is overmanning in an establishment, that is the fault of management and not the trade unionists. Because of the telecommunications cuts imposed by the Government, a factory that has just moved to my constituency will not be able to employ a labour force of the size that was first promised.
The Scottish Home and Health Department recently ordered a computer from ICL without asking for tenders. The Honeywell company in my constituency does not want special treatment, but it wants the opportunity to tender. We need the ICL company, but it should be in a similar situation to direct works departments of local authorities and should have to tender and be seen to be efficient and capable of doing the job.
I do not want only to be critical. I want to put some constructive points to the Under-Secretary, who is to reply. I know that he is not a member of the Cabinet. Indeed, sometimes I wonder whether the Secretary of State attends Cabinet meetings. The United Kingdom has an average unemployment rate of 8·8 per cent., but in Scotland the figure is 11·3 per cent. and in Lanarkshire it is 16·9 per cent.
Now is the time to increase public spending. The Scottish Special Housing Association, not only in my area but throughout the whole of Scotland, wants to carry out modernisation programmes and build more houses. Local authorities are in a similar situation. In some parts of Scotland the sewerage systems require attention. Public expenditure on such works could help to create employment.
The National Federation of Building Trades Employers stated recently:
Expenditure by United Kingdom industry on new premises has dropped by around 13 per cent. in the last decade. Total national investment in new buildings has dropped by around 15


per cent. Renewal and replacement of buildings has lagged far, far, behind. … The discrimination of tax depreciation allowances against buildings has exacerbated this trend. Coinciding with this declining investment in new buildings, United Kingdom productivity performance in the 1970s deteriorated even further. … The 1980s should therefore be the decade in which British industry, with government encouragement, reverses past neglect of its building infrastructure and restores our performance to levels comparable with the best in Europe.
We are the lame ducks of Europe. I do not like to use such terms, but that is a fact of life and we have to face up to it.
I urge the Government to give the Scottish Development Agency the right to be adventurous. Allow it to go to America and attempt to sell Scotland to the Americans. Allow it to sell Scotland to the Europeans. I hope that the Government will get off the SDA's back and allow it to carry out the functions that the Labour Government set it up to carry out.
I am a temporate and moderate man, but I warn the Government that if they do not alter their policies and change course they will be heading for disaster. The people will never forgive them and there is a distinct possibility that we could have a bloodbath in the streets of this country.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) introduced the debate well. He put across clearly his thoughts and feelings on this serious matter. However, it was a hit much for the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) to suggest that we face a bloodbath in this country.
The situation today is not like that of the 1930s, and I can say that from first-hand experience. My father was unemployed in the 1930s. I vividly remember the situation in the tenements of Dundee, and there is no comparison with that today. We do not want anything like the 1930s. That time was a blight on our history, and I am confident that every hon. Member acknowledges that.
The hon. Member for Bothwell was doing an excellent job until his conclusion. He does his case a disservice by overstressing the situation and trying to create fragmentation where it does not exist. Let me remind him of what happened in the household in which I grew up. My father was sacked. He was not made redundant and there were no redundancy payments in those days. With eight children in the home, his sacking presented an enormous problem. Such problems do not exist in the same magnitude today. That is not to say that unemployment is acceptable. It is not acceptable to any thinking, sane person, but we must put the situation into perspective.
I hope that the attitude of Labour Members to this important debate will not be like the synthetic attitude that was displayed in the debate last Thursday, when the only Labour Members present were the Front Bench spokesman and two Whips, one of whom was the hon. Member for Bothwell. The rest had gone home to Scotland, I imagine on sleeper trains. That is an example of the way in which Labour Members display their caring for society, the society that we all care about.

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Gentleman was annoyed at having to stay up late.

Mr. Walker: I am never annoyed at staying up late when it concerns a matter that I care deeply about. I have sat up many times when there has been no Whip telling me to do so, when matters were of great concern to me. Indeed, last Thursday's debate was of great concern to me. I had hoped that Opposition Members would at least support their hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) in his first job on the Front Bench on that day. However, they did not. I should add that a Liberal Member, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) was present throughout the debate and he was not under instruction from any Whip. That clearly shows the difference between us.
Let me remind Opposition Members of Labour's record in office since the war. It is hypocritical of them to claim that their party is the only one that cares about unemployment. When the Tories left office in 1964 there were nearly 69,000 unemployed. When Labour left office in 1970 there were 84,000-plus unemployed. In October 1974 there were 83,000 unemployed. In May 1979, during Labour's period of office, the figure jumped to 183,000 in Scotland. Unemployment has risen progressively in Scotland under Labour Administrations.
Perhaps we should consider cause and effect. That would be more valuable than trying to score points.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Did the hon. Gentleman say that in May 1979 there were 189,000 unemployed?

Mr. Walker: I said 183,000.

Mr. Ewing: The figure that I got from the Library—taken from the Government's own papers, not from Conservative Party Central Office—was 165,441.

Mr. Walker: If I have obtained or copied the wrong figure from the Library, that is an admission on my part of human error and failure. The figure that I have for Scotland for May 1979 is 183,000.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): That is the total figure not seasonally adjusted.

Mr. Walker: I accept the figures, but that does not change the arithmetic. The point is that unemployment has doubled. The situation is not changed; it is merely modified a little.
I want to draw attention to Labour's record of driving out skilled workers—a matter of equal importance to Scotland. In the three years of Tory Government, 1970–73, 21,500 skilled people left Scotland. In the three years under the Labour Administration, 1974–77, 66,500 left Scotland. In other words, not only did Labour double unemployment but it trebled the number of skilled people leaving Scotland.
I want to refer to what Mr. David Bell said in April 1979. As the editor of the quarterly bulletin of the Fraser of Allander Institute, he said that the Scottish economy could be described as
a sick man on drugs".
The cure, he said, was to
reduce its dependence".
I believe that that is exactly what the Government are seeking to do. I do not suggest that everything we do is right and that everything done by the Labour Government was wrong, because that would be nonsense. But we must all learn the lessons of the past.
I shall mention areas where I think that we could do something with the same amount of money as we are spending now. I suggest that we look for substantial reductions in local authority revenue expenditure. Of course, that can only mean reductions in the numbers of people working for local authorities. I should like that to be coupled with an increase of the same amount in capital expenditure projects. That is where tomorrow's infrastructure will come from. We must plant the seeds of tomorrow's harvest.
Further, I should like an increase in Scotland of defence capital expenditure. It would be prudent for Scotland to build ships, in particular the anti-submarine type, because the Soviets are launching a submarine every six weeks. That would also help the steel industry. I should also like us to order the Jetstream for the Royal Air Force from what used to be Scottish Aviation and is now British Aerospace. I do not apologise for wearing a Jetstream tie. I think that we should all promote the sale and production of Scottish products.
I should like more work to be given to our Royal ordnance factories. It is interesting to note that Royal ordnance factories make a surplus. In 1978–79 they made a surplus of £32·7 million. After all, they manufacture products that people want to buy. That is important, because there is no future in manufacturing goods that no one wants to buy. So the Royal ordnance factories, in which we have an interest in Scotland, should be encouraged. We have a substantial number of apprentices employed in Scotland. In the Royal ordnance factories there are 52. There are other Ministry of Defence establishments, including one in my constituency at Almondbank. These are naval workshops—and there are others—employing over 1,000 apprentices, making a total of 1,079 apprentices in Scotland. Those organisations should be encouraged, because they are not using all the facilities that are available to them for training apprentices. There is a great deal of scope. I suggest that my hon. Friend the Minister should persuade his colleagues in the Department of Employment to extend the youth opportunities programme to include apprentices who work for the Government. We already have the facilities. All that is necessary is a transfer of funds—an exercise in transferring paper money. Surely that is possible.
I mention in particular the Ministry of Defence establishments because I tabled a question to my right hon. Friend about the training of apprentices in Scotland. In doing so I was careful not to ask about the Ministry of Defence, because the question would have been transferred to that Ministry for answer. In my view, Scottish Ministers have a duty to persuade the Department of Employment to spend money on increasing the apprentice programme in Ministry of Defence establishments, Royal ordnance factories, and so on. That would make use of facilities that already exist in Scotland.
I turn to what was said by the hon. Member for Bothwell about ex-Prime Ministers. I should hardly describe any of those whom he named as being impartial observers. I shall leave it at that. They all have something that they want to put across to justify their performance in office. We are in danger of deluding ourselves if we accept the arguments that wage, price and dividend control—the policy of the Opposition—would cure our economic problems. Of course they would not. Experience over the past 15 years has shown that such a policy inevitably leads to frustration, dissatisfaction and low productivity.
Demand management and the incomes policies of successive Governments, coupled with intervention on a massive scale, have created a Frankenstein-type industrial situation in Britain.
This is the responsibility of Governments, not of trade unions or of management. I acknowledge that all the problems do not lie with the trade unions, and that management has a share of the responsibility. Many of the difficulties we are now facing are the direct result of management buying peace by refusing to accept its responsibilities. We all know what happened in the car and steel industries, where peace was bought at any price until evenutally the markets disappeared. What we want is a change.
Inflation is dropping, and dropping fast. Inflation is the reason why our manufacturing industries were unable to compete effectively abroad. I speak as a former importer and exporter. When the pound was down to ߨ1.·60, we still could not improve our performance abroad, because we could not then, as we could not last year, the year before and the year before that, say in all seriousness 6 months, 12 months or 18 months ahead "These are the prices that we shall quote and deliver." Inflation completely destroyed our ability to do so.
Every exporting company says "Give us a period of stability, and we can compete with the best." I am confident that trade union members and management, given the right atmosphere by the Government, can compete. Governments have been responsible for the sad history of this country.
Productivity in the high-technology industries is increasing in Scotland and compares favourably with anything anywhere in Europe or North America, or, in some respects, in Japan.
The Government must remain vigilant and not be panicked into rash, precipitate action. We must use existing company training resources. I recommend a scheme for apprentices, making use of those resources. Let us have no more grand Government schemes. The Government are the wrong people to run anything. Companies have the facilities. Let us make sure that they have the opportunities to use them.
Training boards are not fashionable at present in some quarters, but there are some very good ones and we should use them. Their experience should not be lightly cast aside.
We should also give serious consideration to a special, lower rate of energy costs for our manufacturing industries. If Holland, countries in North America and others continue to give their industries benefits and priorities, we must start looking after ourselves.
We must also consider means of motivating people in manufacturing industry. This can be done by a lower rate of income tax or a higher rate of employee national insurance contributions by those working in local and


national government. In one way or another, that would offset the benefits of job security and index-linked pensions. One of the big problems in motivating people lies in the difference between the security of those who work for any Government body and the insecurity of those who work in the areas that create the nation's wealth. That is madness.
I also look forward to the introduction of other novel, progressive ideas, but lack of time denies me the opportunity to draw attention to more than one. The railways are very important to Scotland. We should consider novel schemes for financing the track, in much the same way as we finance the roads. Then we should lease the track to whoever wants to use it, whether British Rail or anyone else. Perhaps we should then get a sense of competition into the railways. Lack of competition has destroyed their ability to deliver the goods. Part of the problem is a failure of successive Governments to deal with the infrastructure difficulties of the railways, primarily the permanent way. This is a novel idea that is worth examining.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) is very much to be congratulated on his motion and on the constructive and positive way in which he moved it.
We in Scotland face as bad an industrial, economic and employment situation as we have ever faced. There is no ducking that. In their attempts to control inflation through controlling the money supply, the Government have made worse a situation that was already bad enough because of the world recession.
The figures have already been quoted. What I find the most horrifying of all the statistics is not simply the total of 254,000 unemployed but the increase in school leaver unemployment over the past year—by a staggering 5,865, or 85 per cent. on last year's figures.
Several hon. Members have already said that unemployment has been rising in an uncertain but fairly steady way over a number of years. The former Secretary of State, Willie Ross—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Lord Ross of Marnock.

Mr. Johnston: I am always uncertain how to refer to Lords. I am grateful for guidance from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).
Lord Ross's peak figure was 100,000. The peak figure of 1968, which he found unacceptable, was "bettered" by each successive Secretary of State in both Labour and Conservative Governments. The peak figure of Lord Campbell of Croy in 1972 and that of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan)—in 1977, I think, rather than 1978, as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) said—were higher still. Now, we have reached the highest yet.
What is most disturbing is that it is not possible simply to say "This is in large part due to the decline of our traditional industries—shipbuilding, engineering and steel", because recent redundancies, closures and cutbacks cover the whole gamut of Scottish industry: Singer, Timex, John Brown, Lawson's of Dyce, Massey-Ferguson and Wiggins Teape in my constituency. I continue to believe that the newsprint option which was floated there

and about which the Minister and I had several discussions at the time was realistic if the Government had been willing then to give sufficient support, perhaps coupled with a different approach to energy pricing. That subject has already been mentioned I shall return to it.
We also face the branch factory problem that Scotland has faced for many years. One wonders what, if anything, the Government can do about that. In my constituency at present we have the extraordinary example of a postcard factory, J. Arthur Dixon, which has only 16 employees but which is very profitable. It is to be closed down because it is now part of the large Dickinson printing group. The parent factory in the Isle of Wight, which employs far more people, is unprofitable, so it is to close down the profitable Inverness firm in order, it hopes, to reduce the losses in the Isle of Wight. Sixteen good men, trained people, are to be put out of work. I do not know the answer, but it is certainly a problem to be very concerned about.
Recent estimates by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) indicate that the level of investment in Scotland is insufficient even to maintain the present capital stock, let alone renew it significantly. In its October Quarterly Economic Commentary, the Fraser of Allander Institute forecasts that Scottish unemployment will reach 300,000 by the third quarter of next year. It says that collapsing employment and negligible new investment are the hallmarks of virtually every area of economic and industrial activity in Scotland.
Do the Government agree with the forecast of 300,000 unemployed by the third quarter of next year? If they do, perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will tell us what steps they have in mind to alleviate the problems.
I will now say briefly what I think the Government should do, because I think that that is the job of those in Opposition. I do not agree with the traditional view that Oppositions are simply for opposing; their job is to try to be constructive. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East set us a good example.
Liberals believe that there are three specific requirements: policies, first, to alleviate the immediate consequences of plummeting demand due to the squeeze on industry; secondly, to reverse the trend of declining investment in Scottish manufacturing industry, which is extremely grave; and, thirdly, to restrain inflation.
It is difficult to disentangle the short-term problems of Scotland from the short-term problems of the United Kingdom. For example, there is the minimum lending rate, which was raised to 17 per cent. in November 1979 because the money supply was out of control. There is no statistical evidence that the money supply is any more under control now than it was a year ago, yet MLR has been reduced to 14 per cent. Therefore, we have gone through a whole year of high interest rates and squeeze, apparently for nothing. I do not understand that.
We think that the Government should make a further 2 per cent. cut really to help industry, in the hope that perhaps a more substantial reduction would also lower the exchange rate, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East.
I turn to the question of the public sector borrowing requirement. With unemployment in Scotland costing about £1·5 billion—and probably between £8 billion and £10 billion in the United Kingdom as a whole—one of the most horrifying statistics emerging from the debate on the Loyal Address is that we now spend the whole of our
revenues from North Sea oil and gas on financing the unemployment which has taken place since the last election. In those circumstances, it is quite futile to cut further the PSBR.
It is also economic madness to impose a further burden on industry through higher national insurance contributions, not even to mention the inequity of that quite arbitrary flat form of taxation. The Government should reverse their decision in this respect.
Almost every hon. Member has referred to energy pricing. I do not understand why the Government cannot do something about that now. I hope that the Minister will refer to this question. It is quite extraordinary that German industry should pay less for North Sea oil and gas than Scottish industry pays, particularly when the Germans are getting most of it from our sector of the North Sea. It does not make any sense at all. The Government should take action forthwith to put it right.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire referred to the railways, and I found his suggestion concerning individual leasing of tracks somewhat difficult to follow, but the Minister ought to have his attention drawn—if that has not happened already—to the lead editorial in yesterday's Sunday Times, with its reference in particular to the way in which we are in danger of losing the great capital asset of our railway system, which could well make a notable contribution to energy saving.
There has been some reference to the Scottish Development Agency, and one is grateful for the £500 million funding, which brings the position back, perhaps, to about the 1978 level. I agree particularly with what was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, that the Government should give the SDA more flexibility. Environmental projects are good, desirable and necessary, but, to take one example, a further investment of £1 million in Stonefield Vehicles would do much more to remove blight than any number of environmental projects.
In the medium and long term, there is need for a much more concentrated sectoral investment policy. This has to be balanced by a much more effective drive for industrial education than the Government have so far shown a willingness to undertake.
In our opinion, there are three priority areas—offshore technology, energy conservation and electronics. It is estimated that, during the next 20 years, offshore discoveries could account for between one-third and one-half of all the world's new oil reserves. That, clearly, is an opportunity for Scottish industry to make a bid not only for the domestic market but also for the overseas market.
The Government should embark on a very vigorous programme of energy conservation. They are not doing so. There is big scope here. The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) referred to the Scottish Special Housing Association's modernisation schemes. In the case of Inverness, these have been put off for five years. It means that for the next five years the energy lost in those old houses will continue. That makes no sense.
Activity could be stimulated in the construction industry, in the boiler and combustion engineering industry and also in computer application.
With regard to electronics, the £45 million reduction in the microelectronics industry support programme is a retrograde step and is not evidence of a willingness of the Government to help this industry. To be fair, I must add that the Government have said throughout that they do not

believe in Government intervention, but hon. Members in all parts of the House are telling the Minister that the Government cannot take that line in a mixed economy.
Investment in new technology will be wasted without a major investment in industrial education. It is highly irresponsible and reprehensible that the Government should be contemplating shifting the financial burden of apprenticeships away from the State and on to industry. In today's climate, that can mean only a reduction in an already low level of industrial training for young people.
Scotland has one of the poorest records in Europe for school leavers receiving any form of further education. If the State can support those with an academic bent, who have been born fortunate enough to have a certain intelligence quotient enabling them to go for a university degree, it should equally face its responsibilities in industrial education. Clearly, skillcentres should not be cut back. That point has already been made.
The Prime Minister has said that she has discerned a change in attitude, in that workers are making wage settlements which she would regard as more realistic in the present circumstances. Most objective observers would say that in the private sector wage agreements are being reached in an atmosphere of fear. Workers are afraid of losing their jobs, so they are settling low. In the public sector, there is a widespread disgust and a widespread revulsion that jobs are being evaluated not acording to any attempt to work out their value but on the basis of crude cash limits and nothing else. No fundamental attitudes are being changed, and if there is the slightest upturn in the economy it will lead to wage chaos.
The National Institute for Economic and Social Research, in its recent quarterly review, said that
there is nothing [in the strategy] to indicate that once expansion is resumed and unemployment begins to fall inflation will not reappear".
Contrary to what was said by the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, Liberals believe that there is a need for a sustained prices and incomes policy and that that need is greater now than it has ever been before. We have never claimed that such a policy would solve economic ills, but it would at least ensure a fair division of the national cake between the public and the private sectors, enable a fairer division to be made within each sector, restore the control over prices which the Government have removed and, therefore, end unjustified increases by those who abuse monopolistic powers.
Scotland faces a devastating crisis, and it is wrong for any hon. Member to seek to underestimate, belittle or reduce the severity of the crisis in the public mind. It is a real crisis, and if the Government do not face up to it in a much more dramatic and dynamic way they will stand condemned by many generations to come.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I pay tribute, as other hon. Members have done, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) for tabling the motion on Government policies in Scotland. The motion
deplores the fact that over a quarter of a million people are now registered as unemployed in Scotland".
We all deeply deplore the unemployment in Scotland but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said, the motion is not quite accurate, inasmuch as there are a number of people who, for a variety of reasons, are not what one could fairly call


unemployed, although they are without a job. But, even taking these points into account, what was said by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East about the unemployed in Scotland cannot be laid entirely at the door of the present Government.
The Labour Government have to bear much of the blame for today's position, and no tub thumping on the part of the Opposition will enable them to escape that fact. The deep recession in the Scottish economy is but part of a worldwide recession, of which we are all very well aware. But it was also apparent long before May 1979, when the present Government took office.
What were the policies of the last Government before 1979 and during their five years in office? Did they pay any heed to the need for wage restraint and increased productivity? Of course not. No effort was made in those directions. The policies of the Labour Government were to carry out excessive public spending and borrowing and to operate profit-destroying price controls.
In the lifetime of the Labour Government unemployment doubled, despite what Opposition Members say. In April 1979, under the Labour Government, unemployment in Scotland totalled 172,900, including 7,000 school leavers, which is a formidable figure.

Mr. Harry Ewing: What was it in February 1974?

Mr. McQuarrie: I do not know. I do not have the figure for February 1974. In any event, I am more interested in the 1979 figure, when the present Government came into office. The Labour Adminstration left us with an unemployment figure of 172,900, including 7,000 school leavers.
Let us forget about 1974 and come nearer to the present time. This Government's term of office so far has been 18 months. The previous Administration were in office for five years. After their five years in office, did they leave us a relatively low unemployment figure? They did not. They left us with 172,900 people out of work. When Opposition Members criticise the figure today, they must remember that they are talking about an increase of 70,000 in 18 months. Although I deplore that figure, I still say that it is reasonable, considering the high figure left by the previous Government.
What worries me about the unemployment level in Scotland is the constant cry—we heard it again today from Opposition Members—of social unrest, fighting in the streets and other emotive phrases which are used merely for political purposes. I regret that the Opposition have cottoned on to tactics which they think will capture the imagination of the people. That is not what they are here for. Right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are here to endeavour to cure the present unemployment ill in Scotland.
Many hon. Members have had the experience of being unemployed, and they deprecate any hon. Member who endeavours to use emotiveness to try to get away from the reality of unemployment. I hope sincerely that after this debate we shall hear fewer of the references to social unrest, bloodbaths and fighting in the streets that we have heard for so many months from Labour Members and that we shall get down to trying to create employment.
If we are to get rid of this dreadful state of affairs, a determined effort is needed by both sides of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on a

number of occasions, the level of unemployment in our country today is a human tragedy. I am certain that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are deeply concerned about unemployment. We are all aware that unemployment takes away the self-respect of the people who are condemned to suffer it. Our job is to seek the cure, but the cure will be found only if there is support in this House and the country for the Government's proposals.
We live in a technological age. We see the loss of jobs in old, declining industries employing mostly men and the closing down of the textile factories that employed mostly women and gave many school leavers their first jobs. They are all gone. We are left with the problem confronting us today.
All these are factors that we have to face, but one major factor stands out above all the rest when we consider the cause of unemployment—the loss of competitiveness. Low productivity and low investment have left us in a very weak position to face the additional problems caused by an exchange rate that is unreasonably high because of our status as an oil-producing country.
Over the past 50 years we have lost 50 per cent. of our competitiveness, and 30 per cent. of it is attributable to a much faster increase in labour costs than that experienced in any other country. Inflation has priced us out of jobs through lost export markets and, more insidiously, there has been an influx of competitive foreign goods into our home market. Until inflation is eliminated, we cannot hope to regain the markets and the jobs that we have lost.
No one can be sure when the world recession will end. When it does—and, from the signs, it looks as though early next year we shall be headed in that direction—

Mr. Canavan: Which direction?

Mr. McQuarrie: Getting out of the recession and being able to provide work for our people. It is vital that we give work to our people, and we shall do that only when we begin to climb out of the recession. We are in this recession as much as the rest of the world—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) may not be in a recession, but he appears to be in a restful position at the moment. If he allows me to finish my speech and he is lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will have an opportunity to get to his feet to speak rather than comment on my remarks from a reclining position.

Mr. Canavan: Hurry up, then.

Mr. McQuarrie: I shall be as fast as I can.
When we begin to climb out of the recession—and, as I said, the signs are that it will not be long before we do—we must be ready to act. We must be ready to arrest inflation. We must reach more realistic wage settlements and achieve an increased level of productivity in manufacturing industry.
Meanwhile, deeply aware of the crisis, the Government are taking positive steps to lighten the burden on as many people as possible. In the measures announced recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, the number of places available through the programmes for special employment and training will be increased from 40,000 to 70,000, and 66,000 of those places will be for the young unemployed. The Government are also investing substantial sums of money in Scotland


to aid industry, either directly through the nationalised industries or, through the SDA and the HIDB, by regional grants and selective assistance.
I am somewhat disappointed that the Government have decided to remove regional status from certain areas. I refer especially to my own area of the Grampians and even more so to my own constituency, where the impact of the removal of that status will have a serious effect on employment in the immediate future unless the Government rethink the position, which I understand they intend to do.
Recently we have had redundancies in the Consolidated Pneumatic Company and massive redundancies in the fish processing factories. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to give careful consideration to these factors. Despite the fact that the Grampian region enjoys some affluence, as the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) reminded us, that affluence is not in the indigenous industries. They are suffering because of the high wages that the oil companies are able to pay their employees. Therefore, consideration must be given to the indigenous industries in the oil-related areas so that they are not affected by the losses that they have to suffer in these circumstances.
I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to an article about the loss of jobs that appeared in The Scotsman on Friday 12 December. It was headed:
Scots firms 'missing out' on thousands of jobs.
In a survey carried out by the Scottish Development Agency, it appears that Scottish engineering companies are losing annually more than £300 million in contracts—contracts that could create thousands of jobs in Scotland—because of weak marketing and weak sales effort. Of every four orders placed by Scottish firms for industrial components and sub-contracts, three go out of Scotland altogether. Scotland enjoyed only 24 per cent. of orders in a market valued at £440 million. As Mr. Peter Homer, of the Scottish Development Agency's industry services division, said,
a 'realistic' target for the market share within the next couple of years would be 35 per cent. This would generate approximately 3,000 more jobs, as 300 jobs would be created by every extra 1 per cent. share in the market.
Those are the matters that we must examine. It is not only a question of the unemployed; we must ensure that industries have a grasp of the problem and tackle it through marketing and competitiveness. I am sure that if the trade unions and management get together—and they have had a much closer relationship of late—the position in Scotland will be much better in a year's time. The debate will have been worth while if it enables people to get moving.

Mr. Norman Hogg: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate because of its importance to Scotland and to my own constituency in particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) for initiating the debate.
My area is suffering, like all areas of Scotland. Some of the employment problems are especially difficult. I am the second hon. Member with a Strathclyde region constituency to take part in the debate. In the Strathclyde region 700 people a week become jobless. In the third quarter of 1980 there were almost 10,000

redundancies—an increase of 3,000 on the previous quarter and 6,000 more than in the same period a year ago. More than 135 jobs vanished every day in the first nine months of this year. There are now more than 144,000 unemployed persons in Strathclyde.
Those statistics are black enough, but we must remember the hidden redundancies in natural wastage and the unnotified redundancies involving fewer than 10 workers. I was sorry to hear references to the problem not being as bad as the statistics suggest. In fact, it is worse, if one takes into account the unregistered unemployed.
In September, the most recent month for which figures are available, 11,000 redundancies were held in abeyance by the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. In addition, thousands of people are on short-time or operating work-sharing arrangements. For tens of thousands of families throughout the Strathclyde region, the Christmas of 1980 will be the hardest in their experience in spite of the experience of others in the 1930s. There is little about which to be hopeful or confident in the coining year.
In my constituency the job crisis deepens and worsens every day. In Kirkintilloch 1,748 persons are wholly unemployed. That is 700 more than last year. That includes over 200 young people—137 boys and 95 girls. The town has to cope with a serious downturn in its manufacturing capacity.
In the past 18 months, redundancies have occurred in the foundries, the traditional industry of the town. Redundancies have occurred at Anderson Strathclyde Ltd, one of the most important employers in Kirkintilloch. The Government's policy towards the Scottish Special Housing Association, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) referred, is causing real worries. I am constantly reminded of the town's genuine fears for the future of the association's Kirkintilloch site.
Cumbernauld, in my constituency, will celebrate its silver jubilee next year. That will mark 25 years of hard and dedicated work by many public authorities. The achievements have been considerable, not least in the attraction of inward investment, for which all the Scottish new towns have a good record. I believe the new towns to be worth while and to have made considerable achievements. However, Cumbernauld's jubilee year will be marked by record levels of unemployment and, most worrying of all, youth unemployment. The town is determined to cope. Recently the district council convened a special meeting with representatives of the trades council, the development corporation and Members of Parliament. The initiative for the meeting was taken by councillor William O'Brien. The meeting was useful. It underlined the town's determination to overcome the unemployment problem.
The recession is most marked by the announcement by the Burroughs Corporation that 355 redundancies are scheduled for next February. The redundancies are a severe blow to Cumbernauld since Burroughs is its largest manufacturing employer. Its goods enjoy a high international reputation. It is in the forefront of the new technology. Its work force is highly skilled and motivated, totally committed and enthusiastic. It is not at all like the work forces referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat). Yet there is to be a cut of 355 jobs.
Burroughs' redundancies have a significance that goes far beyond the company. Burroughs underlines and asserts the importance of Cumbernauld in electronics and light


engineering. Burroughs' presence in Cumbernauld is important for attracting other new industries. As a large employer of labour, it is important to the service infrastructure of Cumbernauld. For these reasons, there is a total desire by the community to save the jobs.
I have told Burroughs management that I am willing to go to the United States to meet Mr. Blumenthal, the company's chairman. I repeat that willingness because I believe in the product, the work force and the town. I hope that such a meeting will lead to new developments at the Cumbernauld plant.
I regret that my endeavours to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland to discuss the issue have met with little response. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 25 November requesting a meeting. I received a reply from the Under-Secretary of State. He firmly rejected Government intervention, although I never asked for it. I had it in mind Government back-up in any discussions between the Government and the company or any agency. I had in mind help from the Scottish Development Agency by discussing the problem in the United States with company representatives. I had in mind Government discussions on the future of the company's development in Scotland. I had it in mind to ask the Government to give me full details of all the incentives available to the company. I was not thinking of new money. I knew better than to ask for it. After all, we hear the Government's response to that each time a redundancy arises. The Government have little interest in protecting our manufacturing base.
I am sorry that the Government refuse to give me details of assistance to Burroughs under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972. I do not know why the Government should refuse to say how public money is spent. I was told that the details would appear in Business News at some future date. That is not good enough. When an hon. Member asks how Government money is being spent, he is entitled to an answer. The queston was put to me by my constituents and I am entitled to an answer. I hope that the Government will provide a reply.
I am conscious of the time, and many of my hon. Friends wish to contribute to the debate. I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to discuss these important issues. However, the Government are more destructive of employment than any Tory Government in post-war Britain. The pursuit of their ill-considered policies has had a devastating impact on industrial life in Scotland. I am sorry that Scottish Ministers have been weak, inept and incompetent in dealing with the situation.
My constituency has suffered and is suffering from the assault of Government policy. It demands a new strategy. That alternative strategy is offered by the Labour and trade union movements and has the overwhelming support of the Scottish people. I hope that we shall see the change at an early date.

Mr. Donald Stewart: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg) made an eloquent plea on behalf of his constituents. It would be wrong for me to follow that plea since I do not have enough information. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on introducing this important subject—the most important facing Scotland. The hon. Members for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr.

Walker) and Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) at least confined their comments to Government policy in Scotland, unlike the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who seems incapable of discussing a subject in a Scottish context and uses British figures. One tended to be thrown by the terrifying idea of 100,000 retired bank managers wandering around. One would be meeting them at every corner.
It transpired, however, that the hon. Gentleman was discussing the matter on a British basis. Although he made a valiant attempt to cut down the serious problem of unemployment and although there was a grain of truth in several of his points, he did not, overall, do much to disguise the fact that the position in Scotland is now extremely serious.
It is all very well for Conservative Members to assure the House that the Government are deeply concerned about unemployment. What are they going to do about it? What are they doing? That is the question that people in Scotland, especially those who are unemployed, are asking.
The Fraser of Allander Institute forecast in October a figure of 300,000 unemployed in Scotland next year. That is an appalling figure. It is interesting that the same source had forecast in July a figure in the region of 200,000. In the short spell of six months, it has seen the situation collapse at an alarming rate. The statistics for unemployment are in complete contrast with Scotland's productivity, which is higher per head than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. This productivity is related to the level of investment in Scotland. We need more, not less, investment in industry. The revenue accruing to Westminster from Scotland merits the investment. Instead, we get surgical amputation from the Treasury knives.
The previous Government cannot claim a record that is pristine pure in regard to unemployment. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East fairly made that point. The previous Government cut back on regional assistance mainly through the ending of the regional employment premium.
The most ludicrous aspect of Government policies, which, on their admission, leads to unemployment, is the gross waste of resources. The Manpower Services Commission calculated in December 1978 that the annual cost to the Exchequer of an unemployed married man with two children was £4,000. It estimated the annual cost of loss of output at £3,000 a worker. The Government admitted in a written reply in another place on 12 November that the monthly loss to the Government was £500·52—a figure that works out at £6,000 a year.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East accused the mover of the motion of wanting more money pumped into Scotland. I thought that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East had made a fair point. He was talking not about new money but of utilising the appalling figure now used to pay unemployment benefit to put these people back to work. That is surely an aim that any rational Government would wish to try to bring into effect.
Another matter that has to be considered is the waste of human resources, skills and crafts, many of them irreplaceable. Emigration will account for some, but even those who remain are not given the opportunity to transfer their skills to a new situation. There are over 50,000


unemployed in Scotland in the under–19 age group. Of these, 10,000 were registered on 3 December as having been out of work for over 26 weeks.
It is an appalling indictment that this proportion of youngsters should he on the dole in this day and age. Many people had come to believe that this generation would never need to know the poverty or the psychological damage caused by having no work. The Tory party, which vaunts its belief in creating freedom of choice and the rise of individuals on merit, has given thousands of Scots teenagers only the freedom to kick their heels and the knowledge of despair and frustration.
I should like the Minister to comment on a report in the press today of a study by Glasgow university, showing that spending cuts in Scotland are determined by English Ministers and no longer by the Scottish Office. The influence of the Scottish Office in determining its own budget, according to the study, has diminished considerably. This practice apparently began in the late 1970s and is known as the Barnett formula, which gives hon. Members some idea how it came about.

Mr. Canavan: Who is he?

Mr. Stewart: There is no need for Scotland to have these appalling unemployment figures. People can see the wealth that comes to the British Exchequer from the oil around the coast of Scotland. People will not stand indefinitely for this appalling depression continuing while that wealth is available.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Alex Pollock.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you would be good enough to bear in mind that 44 out of the 71 Scottish constituencies are represented by Labour Members. There are more of us than the rest of these minority parties put together. I wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you would cast your glance in proportion to those.

Mr. Alex Pollock: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not pursue that nationalistic point of order. I shall try to contain my remarks to the debate. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on bringing forward this subject for debate and for the constructive terms in which he spoke.
I regard the debate as timely, standing, as we do, on the threshold of 1981, when we shall have to consider even more carefully the impact of this Government's policies. In May 1979, as I am sure you will not recall at all, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I made my maiden speech, taking as my theme the need for the Government to give their support to small business men and to try to stress their place in the planning of the Scottish economy. I should like to return to that theme and to renew my plea for support with even greater urgency.
The motion properly concentrates on unemployment. That is right. As almost every speaker has remarked, this is one of the most burning issues of our time. In an effort to be constructive, I should like to address some remarks to one aspect of the problem—the direct correlation that I believe exists between unemployment and high interest rates. I should like to illustrate my point by referring to a recent conversation with a small business man in my

constituency. He runs a small garage in a village near the Moray Firth. He told me how he has been considering plans for expanding the business. Those plans would have involved giving construction work to local tradesmen, leading to a permanent job in the business for a new apprentice.
Owing to the continuing high level of interest rates, he has been obliged to shelve the plan. His contribution to an expanding economy has been thwarted. I believe that this case is typical of thousands in the smaller communities throughout Scotland. That is why I renew my plea to the Government to consider, at the earliest possible moment, a significant reduction in the high level of interest rates.
In making that plea, I remind the Government that there are two main classes of borrower. The first is the speculator, who chooses to borrow and whose primary motive in so doing is simply to play the money market. The other type of borrower is a different breed altogether. He will be a business man, placed at one of two stages. Either he will have already borrowed to fund investment and expansion and, therefore, has no choice but to continue his borrowing and to pay, if the Government so will, an increasing interest charge on his borrowing, or he will be like the small garage proprietor of whom I have spoken, who intends to expand by borrowing but is thwarted and frustrated by the high level of interest rates.
The speculator may be a menace, but the other type of business man most certainly is not. He is the linchpin in the very expansion of our small businesses that my right hon. and hon. Friends constantly preach as the key to revival. That is why I renew the plea to the Government to give early consideration to another significant reduction in the interest rate.
If such a plea falls on deaf ears and if I am told that the economy cannot be planned on that basis at present, I make an alternative suggestion, namely, to ask the Scottish Office to argue with the Treasury the case for a split-level interest rate structure. That is a structure that I understand can operate successfully in other European countries. I see no reason why it cannot operate here. That approach is one that merits fresh study.
If those pleas were acceptable to the Government, they might be agreeably surprised by the response that they could evoke from the small business community, which is anxious to play its part and is willing to expand provided that the conditions are appropriate for so doing. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to respond in an equally favourable and constructive fashion.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I begin my remarks with two compliments. First, I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on choosing this topic for debate. Secondly, I pay a rare tribute to the Government and to the Leader of the House for tabling the business motion and protecting Private Members' interests against the time lost by three statements. We are quick enough to criticise the right hon. Gentleman when he makes a mess of things. On this occasion, it is worth while mentioning that he has done something for Back Benchers.
We have had from two Conservative Members an attempted explanation of why things are different today compared with the 1930s. The hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) think that there is a great


difference between the two periods. Essentially, it boiled down to the 1930s being a period of grinding poverty and to the present being honest-to-goodness plain poverty. That seems to be the difference that they express.
There is a great difference between present conditions and the election campaigns of 19 months ago. It is a long time since we saw posters on the hoardings depicting hired actors forming a winding queue of unemployed under the graphic slogan "Labour Isn't Working". It is a long time since the Prime Minister was making strident criticism of the Labour Government in a rallying call for the electorate to elect a Conservative Government to save the nation from stagnation. It is a long time since we heard the simple message to vote Conservative to get the economy moving again. The economy is moving again, but it is moving into steep decline.
It is worth while spending a short while to examine the figures. When the Labour Government left office in May 1979, there were 165,400 out of work in Scotland. The most recent figures show that unemployment in Scotland has increased by 89,200 to over 250,000. For every 10 minutes that the Government have been in office, someone in Scotland has lost a job.
Unemployment is bad enough in Scotland. The situation is the same or even worse when we consider the United Kingdom figures. Since the Government took office, every minute of every day of every week of every month has seen someone lose a job. That has been as a result of the Government's tenure of office.
I know that the Government always argue that we cannot blame them for everything that has happened since May 1979. It is interesting to consider the figures for the past six months. During that period, 31,400 lost their jobs in Scotland. Instead of one person losing his job every 10 minutes, the rate has increased to one job being lost every 8¼minutes. There has been a sharp increase in the number who are losing their jobs.
If we take the period since the Government have been in power, jobs have been lost at a rate of one a minute. During the past six months, the figure Ms increased to two every minute.
What about the other side of the coin? What vacancies are available? In Scotland, there are only 13,300 vacancies. The number decreased when compared with the previous month. Between October and November throughout the United Kingdom the number of vacancies decreased by 93,300. For every one vacancy in Scotland, there are 19 who are unemployed. For every one vacancy in the United Kingdom, there are 23 who are unemployed. What are we told to do? The Government tell us that the unemployed should be more adventurous. They say that they should move around and find work elsewhere. Anyone who has tried that knows that it is nonsense. The Government are taking a callous and cynical attitude.
Wherever one goes in Scotland and the United Kingdom generally, it is clear that the problems are the same. What is the position in the North-East of Scotland, the Grampian region? It is the so-called El Dorado of the Scottish economy. Indeed, it is the El Dorado of the entire United Kingdom economy. The same problems have arisen.
I do not want to make many constituency points, as there are other opportunities to do so. However, a large paper mill closed near my constituency with a loss of 350

jobs. In the small business sector we are told that the haulage firm of G. T. Fraser's is likely to have to put 43 men out of work because of the difficulties in the fishing industry. There are many other companies that I do not want to mention as they are in a difficult situation. There are many more who are likely to lose employment.
The Government are interested only in looting and plundering the public purse for their own private gain. The "in" word in Government circles there these days is "privatisation". The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) shakes his head. Privatisation—I prefer to call it piratisation—is the latest "in" word. The assets of the Forestry Commission are about to be stripped. Since 1919 the Commission has served extremely well not only Scotland but the whole of the United Kingdom. The price of timber is now sky high and there seems to be the opportunity of easy pickings. What is happening? The private landowners, who have always misused the land in Scotland and raped Scotland's resources, are to be given a chance to get their grubby paws on some easy pickings. I have mentioned only one landowner, but there are many more. Lord Vestey, of the great Vestey empire, pays no tax because he manipulates the tax system. Of course, the Vesteys are people of integrity and they would not break the law. We all know that.
Reference has been made to the Rossminster Group. Again, it is a friend of the Government. Former advisers to the group are in the Government. There are those who have set up bogus schemes merely to avoid tax. I do not suggest thatcourse the particular Minister concerned has no integrity. Of course, he is a man of integrity. However, it is as clear as daylight that the Government base their morality on class interest. That is what governs them. They protect their friends in the City of London and the squirearchy in the counties at the same time as conducting a deliberate and desperate attack on working class people in Scotland.
Every section of the community suffers. We are told that 10 infant schools are to be shut down in Aberdeen for the saving of £150,000. The only one left happens to be in a middle-class area. I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South will prove an ally in fighting the school closures, which will affect the children in his constituency. I shall be surprised if we get the hon. Gentleman's backing.
Rents are being savagely increased whether one lives in a local authority house or a private tenanted house. Fuel bills have increased by over 30 per cent. Postage rates and household rates are increasing. Pensions are not keeping pace with inflation. Benefits are to be taxed. Insurance contributions are being increased. The price of milk has increased by 20 per cent. already this year.
Despite the Government's claim to be a better manager of the economy than the Labour Government, their economic strategy is in ruins. What we are seeing is not inefficient firms shaking out surplus labour and overmanning in order to become leaner and more efficient. This is not like the children of the Spartans who were chucked out in the snow so that if they survived they would be fit to stand up to anyone. It is efficient, hardworking industry that is suffering.
The fact is that the Labour Party is the party that will be left once again to pick up the pieces. We face an awesome, daunting task. I say to members of my party, both inside and outside the House, that it will not be easy. We shall not be able to solve the matter as readily as some


seem to think. It will be a very difficult job. It is easy for the crowd on the Conservative Benches to destroy industry, to smash the economy and everything else and to ruin people's lives. We are having a very difficult job to live with that.
If the Labour Party fails in its Socialist purpose of remedying not only the ills of the past but the ills that have been caused for the future during the period of the present Government, and if we fail to ensure that this does not happen again, it is not just the Labour Party that will suffer; it will be the very fabric of our democracy, which we all seek to protect and to foster.

Mr. Barry Henderson: The speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) contained certain trends that reminded me of the trend of the Labour Government. It started off with high hope and some good words, but by the time it finished we had passed through disillusionment into incredulity about much of what the hon. Member was saying.
I share the appreciation of hon. Members of not only the luck but the skill and judgment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) in arranging this debate, which is extremely well timed. The problem of the unemployed in Scotland is pointed up by the contradictory advice that has been given to the Government in this debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) both gave contradictory advice that has come from different parts of the House—on what ought to be done about the problems of the unemployed. The hon. Member for Inverness felt that we ought to let the public sector borowing requirement rip and pay no attention to anxieties about it and, at the same time, reduce interest rates. Those are views that I think most hon. Members will feel are incompatible with each other.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East felt that we should encourage local authorities to spend more money. He mentioned the concern about interest rates. I accept that one of the greatest problems for small businesses is that of interest rates. Undoubtedly, high interest rates are a serious burden for business. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock) spoke at considerable length about that matter. He referred to two aspects of high interest rates and to two main categories of borrower, but he did not mention a third category of borrower—local authorities and the Government. The extent to which they borrow has a direct effect on the kind of interest rates that must be paid by the business sector. If nothing else comes out of this debate, in which we are concerned about jobs—jobs that come from employers, who have to pay these high interest rates to keep their businesses going—I hope that it will be seen that there is a direct correlation between the problem of high interest rates and high spending by local authorities. The concept that more money being spent by local authorities will help to alleviate the jobs problem in Scotland is wholly without foundation.
The role of the Scottish Development Agency could be discussed more widely than has been possible today. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will encourage the SDA to concentrate on the essential function that it has had since the start of its role—the building of factories. I suggest that we need small factories as much as large factories and the renovation of old factories as

much as the creation of smart new ones. The SDA must concentrate not just on the things that are glamorous and about which big signposts can be erected alongside main roads; it has a very important role to play inside and outside development areas, in helping to provide homes for potential new businesses.
In future we ought to pay more attention to the categories of unemployment that are proving especially intractable. I am thinking particularly of youth unemployment and the vast majority of youth unemployment that arises from people lacking skill or educational qualifications.
Reference has been made to the loss of a few jobs in the Government sector, but I suggest that most of those people would find relatively little difficulty in getting a new job. I do not think that that is where the heart of the problem lies. We have a serious problem in terms of the large number of people who lack skill or educational qualification, or both. We must address ourselves more to how we can deal with that problem. The hon. Member for Inverness made some very helpful remarks about apprenticeships and what we might learn from other places in this context.
There is worldwide recession. Scotland is not exempt from it. We must remove as many obstacles as we can from businesses, large and small, and give every encouragement to them to develop in the future. It is by encouraging them that we shall create the jobs that will relieve unemployment. Jobs are not created by Governments, and certainly not by local government; they are created by employers, and we should relieve them of as many of the burdens as possible. That includes the burden of excessive rates which some local authorities seem to be about to charge this year.

Mr. Neil Carmichael: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) for having chosen the subject of unemployment on being successful in the ballot. I made my maiden speech on this very subject 18 years ago on Wednesday. As well as putting forward a number of figures, I pointed out one factory in the West of Scotland where employment had dropped in four years—from 1958 to 1962—from 15,000 to 10,000. That factory was Singer's. It is no longer in existence. In those days we talked of a figure of unemployment of 93,000 as being unacceptable. Now, the figure is absolutely appalling. It is over 250,000.
Other hon. Members have recited the terrible loss of jobs of men and women in their forties and fifties, out of work for the first time in their lives. Probably the worst thing of all is the terrible effect on a young person who goes straight from school on to the dole. Although I accept that it is a terrible blow for a man or woman of 40 or 50 to lose his or her job, probably the most devastating effect of all is that on the young if there is no prospect of work. I welcome any training that the Government can give them, but the most likely result of that is that it will fit them for a non-existent job, which will almost certainly have no effect other than to increase the frustration that they are bound to feel, having left school and been trained for a job and then finding no job.
One of the other terrible factors about unemployment currently is that it has spread beyond the manual workers to the so-called white collar workers, who are losing their


jobs at the same rate. Architects, surveyors, teachers, engineers and other professional groups are all feeling the pinch.
The Under-Secretary is a chartered accountant. It has been said that the prime task of his profession now is winding up bankrupt businesses. There was an interesting letter from a member of his profession in the Glasgow Herald  recently in which it was admitted that that was true, but the letter added that the real job was auditing books and advising business on its work. But it said that if things went on as they were there would be very few businesses left to advise. That is one of the appalling aspects of the conditions that now obtain.
The worst feature of unemployment is the feeling among individuals of personal failure. The sooner people realise that unemployment is not, in present circumstances, personal failure, the better. It has also been said that conditions for the unemployed are not as bad now as they were in the 1930s. That is true, but they were not as bad in the early 1930s as they were in the 1900s or the late 1800s. Society is moving on, however. While in absolute terms things are not so bad, in relative terms unemployment is just as bad for the individual as it ever was.
In my maiden speech I referred to the terrible frustration of the unemployed man coming downstairs in the morning and not knowing whether to go right, left or back upstairs, because nobody cared about him or was interested in what he was doing.
I hope that we never reach the point, referred to by hon. Members and the press, of blood and fighting in the streets. However, I see a possible great increase in what the comfortably-off will call needless and heedless vandalism. I refer to young people who have been 10 years at school and leave to go straight on to the dole queues. They see hopelessness all around them and feel that no one is interested in or cares about them. They have no purpose in life. This problem can be seen in the big cities. I recently toured parts of Glasgow at the invitation of the local authority, spending a full morning visiting the depressed areas. To see the young kids who have no work was, indeed, depressing.
Can youngsters be blamed for what they do when no one cares about them? They are healthy and they have plenty of energy. Can anyone blame them going down to the coast and having a bit of a flurry in the towns there? Can one blame them going to football matches and blowing their tops? It is reprehensible, but at least if they are bundled into a police van or locked in a cell someone is paying some attention to them. Jock Stein, commenting on football vandalism, said that if football did not cause the rowdiness, tiddlywinks would. He was saying that something much more fundamental underlies the problem. I believe that it is the lack of purpose of most young people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that there were no magic solutions. That is so, but a number of things can be done. We should not overlook the wealth of North Sea oil. Tremendous sums are being spent on the dole. Surely there are enough jobs to be done—rail electrification, the complete renewal of our telecommunications system and so on—to provide work. One of the most obvious courses—this shows the craziness of our society—concerns the building industry.

Thousands of building workers are unemployed, as are architects, surveyors and building supply workers. Building firms are going bankrupt. Surely we could bring them all together to provide more housing, new and renovated. There is a need for sheltered housing, more geriatric homes and a variety of other new building work. Building is traditionally the first sector of industry to get moving, with the rest of industry following on. I hope that the Government will change their mind and release more money in this direction.
One hon. Member mentioned sewers. There are no votes in sewers. However there is a comprehensive sewerage system in this country, built from the wealth that the Victorians obtained from industry and the Empire. Unless we do something about it soon, we shall be involved in spending hundreds of millions of pounds in renewing it. Surely that is work that could be undertaken.
The list of things that can be done is endless. We have the skilled labour, the materials and the professional expertise. Only the political will and the organisation to bring them together and start our economic recovery are lacking. I am not an economist, but I recognise the consequences of monetarism. If it means the sort of Britain—the sort of Scotland—that we are now living in, it represents too severe a cure for the ills from which we suffer.
Like many hon. Members, I receive pamphlets from an organisation called Forum of Private Business. It consists of small business men who are not allied to the Labour Party and who were rooting for the Conservatives before they came to power. The organisation sends out questionnaires to its members, who return them and their fairly predictable results to their Members of Parliament. I receive them every month. Last month I received one from a firm in my constituency. This member of a basically Tory-inspired group had written just one word across the form—"Help".
That was a cry from the Tory heart. If the pleas from the Labour Benches are ignored by the Government, surely the cries of desperation from their friends will convince them that something drastic is required.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I echo the congratulations of other hon. Members to the hon. Member to Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and apologise for not having been here to hear his speech. I was at a meeting with the Secretary of State for Industry with the hon. Members for Paisley (Mr. Adams) and Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) to discuss Linwood.
I wish to underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) about the burden of public spending on the private sector. There is widespread resentment in Scotland that the recession is being taken so heavily by the private sector rather than by the public sector. That reflects itself not only in the issue of interest rates but in the burden of domestic rates. We should not forget the estimate by the Edinburgh chamber of commerce that by next March the burden of rates in that region alone will have cost 5,000 jobs.
We in this House can and must divide on political grounds. It is right for the Opposition to attack the Government. However, it is wrong for us in Scotland to undersell ourselves. We should bear in mind that in the recession in the year to June output in the investment goods sector—mechanical engineering, industrial plant


and the like—rose in Scotland by 9½ per cent. when it was falling in the United Kingdom as a whole. That sector is, above all, the export sector. I hope, therefore, that we can agree to congratulate the managements and work forces of so many Scottish companies on getting exports out in spite of the high value of the pound and the recession.
We often sell ourselves short in industrial relations. Of course, we have industrial relations problems in Scotland, and we should not try to hide them. But, at the same time, we should all take every opportunity to point out that the overwhelming majority of Scottish companies have, and always have had, excellent industrial relations because people realise that good industrial relations and improving productivity are essential if jobs are to be created and maintained.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have taken careful note of the time taken by the various parties in the debate. I calculate that Labour Members, including the hon. Member who moved the motion, have taken 64 minutes, the Tories 55 minutes and the SNP and Liberals 23 minutes. In other words, the party that has well over half the seats in Scotland has taken very much less than half the time in the debate. That is an intolerable imbalance. We on this side object to the fact that the two minor parties are taken as being opposition parties to the Government when in fact their speaking time is out of the time of Labour Members. I find that intolerable, and I personally find it increasingly intolerable that I cannot seem to get into bloody debates in this House at all.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I sympathise very much with what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am sure that he will appreciate the great difficulty of being fair in debates of this kind. My calculations are somewhat different, if I may say so—83 minutes from the Opposition side of the House and 69 from the Government Benches. My mathematics may not be wholly correct, but I think that we should perhaps get on with the winding-up speeches.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I join all right hon. and hon. Members who have commended my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on introducing the debate. When my hon. Friend came first in the ballot for Private Members' motions today, it was fairly obvious that he would choose the very important subject of the Scottish economy. It is entirely appropriate, as we reach the end of 1980 and look both ways—backwards into the year that is just about over and forwards into 1981—that we should debate the Scottish economy at this time.
Before turning to the main burden of my remarks, I wish to make two points. The motion refers to Government policies in Scotland. I wish to make two points about Hampden Park. I have already given early notice to the Minister who is to reply that I intended to raise these two matters, in the hope that I would receive an answer. I refer first to the difficulties that Queen's Park football club faces. The possibility that Scotland might easily lose its national stadium is a very serious matter indeed. Will the Government consider stepping in to help Queen's Park in its present difficulties?
The second matter, of which I have also given notice to the Minister, is the possibility that the Government will

opt out of their responsibility to the consortium set up to build the new Hampden and from which the Government, unexpectedly, but true to character, as we have seen since, withdrew. I understand that there is a possibility that the Government will not now give any money at all to the consortium to meet the fees incurred by the design team, which has done an excellent job. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer both those questions.
I turn to the brief intervention of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East (Mr. Stewart). I am sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) did not come in five minutes earlier to hear his hon. Friend speak in a much more constructive tone about industrial relations in Scotland than he himself did. It is a bit much that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, having run out of social security scroungers to attack, is now turning his attention to the trade union movement. With his lack of experience of industry in Scotland, perhaps he can take some lectures from his hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, East, who will no doubt he able to tell him the true facts of life about industrial relations in Scotland. Then we may have a more constructive approach from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South. Perhaps that is hoping for too much, even at the end of 1980, but we are entitled to hope.
A great deal has been said about unemployment figures. Certainly, they are germane to the debate. In case there is any misunderstanding about what the unemployment figures were when the Government came to power and what they are now, I shall quote the figures. These figures were given not by the Library or anyone else but by the Secretary of State himself, speaking in a Scottish Grand Committee debate on industry. The right hon. Gentleman said:
In May, when we took office, seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland stood at 165,900, as against 84,500 in February 1974.
The February 1974 figure is clearly wrong, because 300,000 people in Scotland were on a three-day week in February 1974 as a result of the then Tory Government's policies, which plunged the country into despair. The Secretary of State went on to say:
in other words, an additional 1,300 unemployed for every month that the Labour Government held office" —[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee,; 17 July 1979; c. 12.]
I accept that that is an accurate figure. For every month that that Government were in office, an additional 1,300 were unemployed. Labour Members have accepted that during our term of office unemployment was unacceptably high. We are entitled to look at what has happened every month since we were replaced by the Conservatives. I find no meeting point with Conservative Members on the whole question of unemployment. I simply do not believe that the policies being pursued by the Government will do anything to alleviate unemployment in Scotland, get our people back to work and re-establish something of the fabric of society.
Every month since the Conservative Government came to power, 4,500 people have lost their jobs. From the figure of 165,900 quoted by the Secretary of State for Scotland in July 1979, unemployment has risen to its present level of 254,559. Not only that, but the number of notified job vacancies has declined rapidly. In May 1979, notified job vacanies were 23,855. Last month that figure had fallen to 13,306. In May 1979, the number of vacancies notified to careers officers was 1,639. In November 1980, the last month for which we have figures, the number had fallen to 296.
In anyone's language, that is a scathing indictment of the policies being pursued by the Government. Business man after business man has pointed that out. In yesterday's Sunday Telegraph, the financial director of Debenhams, Ken Bishop, is reported as saying:
Everyone seems to have the idea that there must be a bottom to the cycle. But what basis is there for that? On the Government's present policy, it could be bottomless.
That was the financial director of Debenhams, which incidentally, has a big store in my constituency. Sir Hugh Fraser and his adviser, Professor Rowland Smith, say that "People go around talking purely about when things get better, when they are back to normal next autumn, or when the upturn takes place in 1982. I think all this talk is looney."
This brings me to the point made by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, East about the Edinburgh chamber of commerce. The Edinburgh chamber of commerce, led by David Mouat, will have to show more responsibility than it has shown over the past few months. David Mouat will have to stop being the Tory Party's mouthpiece in Edinburgh, and using the chamber of commerce as a platform to propagate Tory policy. I heard David Mouat on the radio this morning, as I was driving to Edinburgh airport, saying that shops in Edinburgh were having a bonanza Christmas and that people were buying more expensive presents than ever before. Yet Sir Hugh Fraser, who has a vested interest in many shops in Edinburgh says that sales are disastrous. I sometimes wonder who speaks for the business community. Is it the chamber of commerce, or those who own and run the businesses? There is no evidence to substantiate any claim that there will be an upturn in the economy.
I have given the comparative unemployment figures. Let us assume that unemployment continues at its present rate and that 4,500 people lose their jobs for each month the Government stay in power. Let us also assume—horror of horrors—that the Government stay in power only until the end of 1983. Business men, who are not Labour politicians, know the score and see the results through their cash registers. Nothing influences business men more than the cash register. They know the score, and they are all saying that there is no sign of an upturn in the economy. If the unemployment figures continue to grow at their present rate—the evidence is that they are getting even worse—by the time we reach the end of 1983 there could be 500,000 people unemployed in Scotland.
That is not scaremongering. It is something to which we ought to direct the Government's attention as being a distinct possibility. We are, therefore, entitled to ask what has caused all this unemployment. In my view, and in the view of many who have been made unemployed, it has been caused deliberately by the Government's economic policies.
We are consistently and constantly told that a great deal of unemployment is due to the fact that people in the United Kingdom buy foreign goods. I can only quote examples from my constituency, and the House will forgive me if I use such examples. The Carron company, one of the greatest engineering companies in the world, which is based in Falkirk, is on short-time working. Five hundred men have lost their jobs in the last three or four months, not because people in Stirling, Falkirk, Grangemouth or any other part of the United Kingdom are

buying cookers from abroad but because Government policies have stopped house-building, so that demand for domestic appliances has collapsed to a disastrous level. That is a good example of the direct results of the Government's economic policies.
Another company in my constituency is Junior Books, which is located in Grangemouth. It has a new, modern factory, the sole purpose of which is to supply books to our education establishments and public libraries. It will close down at the end of February, not because of anything that the company has done but because the Government have so cut public expenditure, particularly in relation to local authorities, that the company can no longer sell books to the educational establishments, such as schools, or the libraries, which are no longer buying books.
A thermal insulation plant, Cape Insulation in Stirling, has experienced some difficulty throughout the year. Fortunately, it is now slightly better off. However, its difficulties were not created because householders were buying thermal insulation material from a foreign company. They were created because the Government stopped the home insulation grant. When they reintroduced it, they did not identify it as a separate grant. This afternoon's statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment made it clear that the money had been buried in the housing grant and that it was not identifiable. That is a direct result of Government policy.
Callendar Park college in Falkirk, Hamilton college and Craiglockhart college all have lecturers and staff who are being made redundant, not because we are buying education from abroad but as a direct consequence of Government policy. The whole of the Scottish building industry is going to rack and ruin. That has nothing to do with the industry itself but everything to do with the Government's policies in respect of house-building and construction. In every aspect of policy, the Government are responsible for the high level of unemployment which Scotland now faces.
Unless the Government are prepared to change their policies, unemployment will continue to go on its relentless upward spiral, and greater human misery will be created as a result. It is futile for Conservative Members to plead with Labour Members to co-operate in helping to convince the people that the medicine being dispensed is correct, that we should give them larger doses and that at the end of the day all will be well. They will not get that co-operation, because we are not prepared to co-operate in putting people out of work. That is simply not on. It would be wrong of me to give the Minister the impression that we were prepared even to understand the difficulties that he has created for himself.
I made an agreement with the Minister that I would curtail my remarks so that he could have an opportunity to reply to what has been a good and detailed debate. As we are entering the festive season, I should like to relate a story which most Conservative Members can tell at their forthcoming parties. It is a true story about the Minister when he first went to the Scottish Office. One day he was going out on an engagement and the Government car service could not supply the transport for him. The job was hired out to Croll and Croll, the famous funeral drivers in Edinburgh. The driver who was to call for the Minister was driving a hearse at a funeral. On his way back to the garage, he realised that he did not have time to return to the hearse, pick up the car and collect the Minister, so he drove to New St. Andrew's House in the hearse.
I understand that the Minister got into the front with the driver. But perhaps that driver had more foresight than we would give him credit for. He was coming to collect the undertaker who in the last 20 months has sought to bury Scottish industry. The Labour Opposition will do everything in their power to prevent him from doing any more damage to Scotland's industrial infrastructure and to the people whom we represent.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): Obviously the undertaker did not realise that there had been an election and was calling for a Labour Minister.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of Slate, who is in Brussels, would wish to be associated with our congratulations to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on introducing the motion, which is welcomed by the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] It is welcomed by the Government. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) for acknowledging the arrangements made to give Scottish Members interested in the debate time to express a point of view.
I want to make one thing perfectly clear. The Government are as aware of the hardship and human misery caused by unemployment as are Labour Members.

Mr. William Hamilton: Spare us that.

Mr. Fletcher: I shall spare the hon. Gentleman nothing. I wish to make that point at the outset, so that there can be no doubt as to our strength of resolve on this issue. Labour Members do not have a monopoly of compassion or concern. They talk about it more, and they talk about it louder, but they have no such monopoly. Unemployment is far too high, and its social, personal and economic consequences are grave matters indeed. That should be common ground between both sides of the House. No one wants to see unemployment in Scotland, or in the United Kingdom as a whole, remain at its current level, least of all the Government. With that in mind, we shall not oppose the motion.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East read an extract from the Sam Brittan article in today's Financial Times. I am glad that he did. It was a salutary and honest article. It emphasised our dependence as a trading nation on international trade and exchange rates, money movements and money transactions throughout the world. We should bear in mind that in economic affairs Britain is by no means an island. That says little for the import and exchange controls and the siege economy advocated only too frequently by Opposition Members.
The resolution
deplores the fact that over a quarter of a million people are now registered as unemployed in Scotland".
Given my job and its responsibilities, no one deplores that more than I. The resolution calls for the implementation of policies that will put an end to such unemployment. That is what our policies are designed to do. I firmly believe that that is exactly what they will do. The hon. Gentleman's motion seeks the introduction of an alternative economic strategy. The difficulty is that all the other strategies have one factor in common, namely, they have been tried before—well within the memory of all hon. Members—and they have failed.
Hon. Members have said that the Government should bring in this new measure or that new measure. They have

said that the Government should somehow increase Government spending and that all would then be well. Such arguments prove how little Opposition Members have learnt during the past 10 or 15 years. That approach led to our present economic position. It has weakened our industrial structure and brought about the present levels of unemployment.
The crucial fact that is basic to an understanding of the British economy is that we are a trading nation and we must trade to survive. We export a greater share of our gross domestic product than any of our main competitors. Indeed, we export proportionately more than West Germany and far more than France, Japan or the United States of America. Over the years we have become less and less effective as a trading nation. There are many complex reasons for that, but one vital reason is that we have been willing to countenance very high levels of inflation. We have been willing to enjoy a standard of consumption and a level of public services that we cannot afford and have not earned, and we have paid too little attention to the need for wealth creation as against its distribution.
I was surprised that, given all the lessons of the past 10 to 15 years, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East should call for higher public expenditure. Neither he nor any of his right hon. or hon. Friends referred to the impact of higher public expenditure on inflation. Our first priority remains the control of inflation. Only by that means will it be possible to bring about the economic stability that will lead to the industrial regeneration that is essential to improve Scotland's job prospects.
We see signs of success. Inflation is falling. Opposition Members are uncomfortable when they are reminded of that. The cause of high unemployment is not hard to find; it is high inflation. Together with the United Kingdom, countries such as France, Italy, Belgium and Ireland are suffering from high unemployment, while countries such as Germany and Japan, which have low levels of inflation, have low levels of unemployment.
The world is in recession. It is instructive to remember that unemployment is not purely a Scottish or a British problem. It is also high in other trading nations. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) rightly referred to the 1930s. He said that the problems at that time were more critical and were different from those of today. He also referred to the problems of overmanning, which were mentioned by only one other Opposition Member. It is important to mention that trade unions have a responsibility to eliminate restrictive practices, not least in industrial training.
We can do much to help ourselves in terms of the problems of unemployment. We are seeing signs of realism, and many important wage settlements have been made in single figures. That is encouraging. Despite the comments made by the hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), I continue to urge that we should drive the message home. Real increases in pay can be justified only by increases in productivity. It is absurd and out of order to suggest that there is a painless cure for this country's economic problems.

Mr. David Lambie: What about the chairman of ICI?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) referred to the steel industry. I respect his


experience of industry. I know that he represents a constituency that lies within easy reach of the important steelworks at Ravenscraig. However, I was surprised when he seemed to suggest that wages should be increased at such a period in the history of the British Steel Corporation. The chairman of the BSC has publicly declared that the enterprise is bankrupt. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes his responsibilities seriously, and I should have thought that he would have joined the BSC in urging his constituents, and those who work in that area, not to press for a wage increase against the interests of their corporation.

Mr. Harry Ewing: rose—

Mr. Fletcher: I hope that the hon. Member for Bothwell will press on his constituents and those employed there that they have an opportunity to prove that they can produce steel at least as efficiently as any other steel workers in Europe. Investment has been made, and Scottish steel workers have the opportunity to prove that they can do it.

Mr. James Hamilton: I wish to put the record straight. I have a steelworks in my constituency. The order book is loaded for at least a year and a half. Are the Government still operating a policy of free collective bargaining?

Mr. Fletcher: Of course there is a policy of free collective bargaining. Free colletive bargaining means that one side demands wages that it will equal in productivity and that the other side has the cash to meet those demands. It is a matter of paying one's way. Free collective bargaining must have restraints, just as any other form of bargaining has.
The hon. Member for Bothwell blames management, not trade unions, for overmanning. I do not disagree with that comment. However, there are others to be blamed for the overmanning that exists, particularly in the public sector and in the steel industry—namely, successive Labour Industry Ministers. Against the advice of the BSC, those Ministers continued to keep plants open at overmanned levels. As a result, the steel industry has had the most horrendous redundancies during the past year, in the middle of one of the worst world recessions that we have known. If Labour Ministers had had the courage of their convictions, they would have allowed those redundancies to take place over a longer period, and the labour force would more easily have found different jobs and new opportunities.
I turn to the immediate concern of the debate. We fully recognise the damaging effect that prolonged periods of unemployment can have, at both a personal and a social level. The present high levels of unemployment have been particularly hard on school leavers and on the young generally. It is our duty to see that their prospects are not permanently damaged. That is why we have backed the Manpower Services Commission in giving an undertaking to provide all school leavers who cannot find a job this year a place on the youth opportunities programme by the Easter following their school leaving date.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East acknowledged the importance of the special measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 21 November. As my right hon. Friend said, we are

planning to expand the youth opportunities programme by a further 75 per cent. in 1981–82 and to provide about 66,000 opportunities for young people in Scotland—29,000 more than we planned for the current year.
We are making a number of other significant changes in the programme. First, we are asking the Manpower Services Commission to strengthen its undertakings next year and to move towards a position in which it can offer a suitable opportunity to any 16 or 17-year-old who has been unemployed for three months. Secondly—I regard this as perhaps the most significant development—we intend that the emphasis in the programme should be placed increasingly on good quality training for work, and two-thirds of the places will provide work experience on employers' premises.
The present recession has led to a reduction in the number of apprenticeships and other training opportunities available for young people in industry. The Manpower Services Commission, under its training for skills programme, already makes substantial efforts to supplement the normal intake of apprentices by employers.
I believe that industry's needs for trained labour are changing, as the nature of work is changing. People can no longer expect to learn a traditional skill and to keep at it for the rest of their working life. What is needed is a different, more flexible type of training to cope with changing circumstances. That is vital, because when the upturn in the economy comes I believe that the opportunities for unskilled and semi-skilled people are likely to be fewer and fewer. That is an underlying trend that we see in all developed countries. I am concerned that we in this country are not doing enough at present to give our young people the basic training that they will need to cope with changing industrial circumstances.
I am also anxious to see changes in the present apprenticeship system, with its emphasis on time served rather than skills attained and its rigid rules about ages of entry. It is generally accepted that our outmoded apprenticeship system is itself a major contributor to the inflexibility of our present training system. I should like to abolish the word "apprentice". I should like people to become trainees at any age up to, say, 50 years and to be assessed not on time served, which is a pretty useless and outdated method of assessment, but on standards achieved during training.
The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth asked two questions about Hampden Park. The first concerned the problem facing Queen's Park, which is entirely a matter for the football authorities.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Government caused it.

Mr. Fletcher: No, we did not cause it. The problems facing Queen's Park concern maintenance. Opposition Members must know that over many years, and until very recently, Hampden overflowed with spectators. Unfortunately, the money was never put aside to keep the ground up to scratch and in good order. That is a fact of life.
On the second point, the hon. Gentleman suggested in his usual rather wild—

Mr. Robert Hughes: Where does the money come from?

Mr. Fletcher: That is a matter for the football authorities and not for me. With regard to the Government's commitment to the abortive expenditure, as I have said on a number of occasions recently, we have no intention of not meeting our due obligations. We have obligations, which I freely accept, and we shall meet them.
In a debate like this, it is important that we remember that all is not doom and gloom for the Scottish economy. Any visitor to Scotland would be delighted with the opportunities that exist. North Sea oil has created between 70,000 and 85,000 jobs in the past decade and has attracted investment of £11,000 million. It is the conservative estimate of the oil companies that over the next 15 years about £60,000 million will be invested in the North Sea. That must mean more jobs and more prospects in Scotland—and that is only our domestic market. About 90 countries around the world are currently engaged in offshore explorations. Several of our more enterprising companies in Scotland have already begun to win large orders overseas for offshore related equipment, and we should be proud of that.
The electronics industry is also expanding in Scotland. New investment is coming from companies such as IBM, Motorola National Semiconductor, General Instruments, Hewlett-Packard and Nippon, to name but a few. Sound investment is being made in electronics in Scotland, which offers splendid opportunities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) mentioned youth opportunities programme training in Ministry of Defence establishments. There are such places available. The Manpower Services Commission is hopeful that the number will be increased.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) asked for increased demand and increased investment. He was also the only Opposition Member to mention inflation. Consumer demand is still high. Unfortunately, that has been reflected in imports of goods from overseas, because of the lack of competition from British industry in the manufacture of too many important products, such as electrical goods and motor cars. British money has been spent but has helped other countries, because we have not had the competitive industries to meet demand. Our problem is not a shortage of domestic demand.
Wide support is available for investment and was available for Fort William. The trouble there was more a matter of exchange rates and the agreement, which is to the benefit of the British newspaper industry, to have the price linked to the dollar.
Unfortunately, time is running out and, although I should like to reply to the many of other points raised, I shall have to conclude.

Mr. Strang: I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not necessary. The Minister has sat down.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House deplores the fact that over a quarter of a million people are now registered as unemployed in Scotland; and calls for the implementation of policies which will secure an end to the hardship and misery caused by this tragic waste of human resources.

Orders of the Day — Anguilla Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members who have studied the history of Anguilla will find the Bill acceptable. It was well put by Lord Northfield in another place on Second Reading, when he said that the question of Anguilla was best described as water under the bridge.
I merely emphasise that past events in Anguilla should create no precedent for similar events in other islands in our dependent territories. The Bill should create no precedent if similar situations should arise. In some ways events have been unique, and perhaps that is how we should regard them. Nevertheless, I believe that the House will agree that this is the right solution to the problem.
Hon. Members will recall that St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla is one of the associated States set up under the West Indies Act 1967. The three islands comprising the State are St. Kitts with a population of 34,000, Nevis with a population of 12,000 and Anguilla with a population of 6,500. Anguilla is approximately 70 miles from the main island of St. Kitts.
When the associated State was set up—I shall deal with the history only briefly, unless hon. Gentlemen wish me to go into greater detail later—the people of Anguilla were not prepared to accept a State with St. Kitts and Nevis. They ejected the St. Kitts police officers who were on the island. In due course, they resisted the restoration of law and order which was undertaken by the previous Government in 1967. Indeed. the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) experienced the difficulties of trying to coerce Anguilla into remaining in the associated State.
The previous Government made many attempts at reconciliation. A delegation went from Parliament to try to persuade the Anguillans to adopt a different attitude and, failing that, to try to find a solution to the problem. All these attempts failed. In the end the Anguilla Act 1971 was passed, whereby the island was administered by a British commissioner, and it has been so administered ever since.
During the years that followed the 1971 Act, no political consensus emerged as to how to deal with the situation. The Government now propose a permanent solution: that the island of Anguilla should remain as a British dependency with a British governor and should be separated from the associated State of St. Kitts-Nevis. What may or may not happen to the future of St. Kitts-Nevis is no longer the concern of Anguilla.
With the passage of time, this is the only solution that appears to be possible. I believe that it is accepted on both sides of the House. It is certainly accepted in Anguilla and, I believe, within St. Kitts-Nevis.
The failure to resolve this problem over the years has led not only to political difficulties but to economic difficulties because people have not felt free to invest in Anguilla until the political future was determined. This has


perhaps impacted upon the development of the island, particularly in relation to tourism. I hope that all that is now at an end.
For the benefit of the House, I will go over the recent history of Anguilla and relate why it has been found necessary to bring forward the Bill. The House will know that it would have been possible to have had a request from the St. Kitts-Nevis legislature to Her Majesty's Government to separate the island by Order in Council. That solution was negotiated with the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis in December last year, when Mr. Lee Moore was Premier. A package was brought forward consisting of progress towards independence for St. Kitts-Nevis and the separation of Anguilla. At the same time, special arrangements for determining the opinion of the inhabitants of Nevis about their future were made in the form of a referendum. Then Mr. Moore had a general election in February this year which he did not win, so the agreement with the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis fell. Instead, Dr. Kennedy Simmonds was elected Premier. He confirmed a coalition with representatives of both Nevis and St. Kitts, which hangs together firmly on the question of not raising anything about the future of the island of Nevis in relation to St. Kitts. That problem could lead to demands for secession by Nevis from St. Kitts-Nevis. It is not easy for the representatives of either Nevis or St. Kitts to request formally through the legislature that Her Majesty's Government should separate Anguilla.
Separation is a tricky matter in that part of the world. It has been left to us to propose the Bill as a means of doing it by statute rather than by Order in Council. I assure the House that the people of Nevis and St. Kitts are content that we should proceed in this way. Indeed, I believe that there is consent in all quarters to the Bill.
We made a commitment to the Anguillans that separation would be effected by the end of the year. If the House were to give the Bill a Second and Third Reading tonight, it would be the Government's intention to bring in the commencing date order almost immediately after the Royal Assent and to have the date of separation as 19 December.
Under clause 1(1) it is necessary to appoint a date by order, although, since the Bill is before the House tonight and is debatable, the order will require approval of the House, because the House can approve or disapprove 19 December in the debate tonight.
The Bill contains other provisions. The first is that we may make regulations for the constitutional advance of Anguilla. We may be able to give to Anguilla the right to control its own finance and to have its own Minister of Finance. We should like to see it make constitutional progress. However, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government that Anguilla should proceed to full internal self-government. We regard that status only as a paving status before corning to independence. I believe that it is difficult to grant full internal self-government for a State which wishes to remain a dependency, as Anguilla currently does.
Under clause 1(3)(b), we have the power to bring Anguilla to independence by order if it should so wish at any stage in future. Whatever constitutional changes, whether' towards independence or not, the Anguillans decide to seek in future, the Bill contains powers to give

them that advance by order. Therefore, I believe that the Bill contains powers to deal with any eventuality that might arise.
Those are the main provisions of the Bill. I should add that any constitutional change, apart from the date of separation, would be debatable by the House on an affirmative order. The House would in no sense be deprived of any further opportunity to discuss the territory of Anguilla if a change were proposed.
I turn now to what we are doing to help the economy of Anguilla. In the current financial year, 1980–81, grant-in-aid to the island is expected to be about £350,000, development aid amounts to £540,000 and, in addition, we are spending about £200,000 on technical co-operation, making a total of £1·09 million, which, for an island as small as Anguilla, is not an insignificant sum. We recognise that we have a special responsibility through our aid programmes for these small islands which will remain dependencies. In particular, some Caribbean islands have perhaps been neglected in the past, not by this Government or by the Labour Government, but by our forefathers. It is right that we should seek to help them to develop the infrastructure and productive enterprises, be they tourism or anything else, which will give them a viable future.
The Government will continue to aid Anguilla to the best of our ability, within the limitations of the totality of the aid programme.
I am sure that the House will feel that the Bill draws to an end an unhappy chapter in this part of the Caribbean and will wish to extend good wishes to Anguilla on its separation and best wishes for the future to St. Kitts-Nevis on the ending of the dispute.
I am sure that hon. Members will wish to ask questions, and I shall be happy to respond at the end of the debate. This simple little Bill will bring an end to a situation which all who have been involved in it will agree was difficult. I believe that the Bill is a solution which should find ready acceptance in all quarters.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Opposition are glad that the main purpose of the Bill enjoys the full support of the Anguillans and the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis. I know that it was the intention of the previous Government to try to resolve the outstanding constitutional issues affecting Anguilla by the end of the last year. As the Minister recalled, a working arrangement had been arrived at under the Anguilla Act 1971 and the Anguilla constitution of 1976 which provided for de facto dependent status for Anguilla, though it remained de jure part of the associated State.
In the light of the settled wish of the Anguillans not to be constitutionally linked with St. Kitts-Nevis, I have no doubt that the Government were right to continue to search for a solution that would meet the wishes of the people of Anguilla and be acceptable to the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis.
It has been a tortuous trail from 1967 to the point of agreement and I gladly express the Opposition's satisfaction that the new Government of St. Kitts-Nevis, under Dr. Kennedy Simmonds, should have agreed to the British Government taking the necessary steps to enable Anguilla to be separated from the associated State of which it forms a part.
The circumstances in which the Bill comes before the House are different from those that were envisaged at the


time of the Government's discussions with the St. Kitts-Nevis Government in December last year. Agreement was reached with the St. Kitts-Nevis Government that they should move to early independence as a unitary State and that they would facilitate the separation of Anguilla. That agreement was in line with the position taken up by the British Government as early as 1971 that if St. Kitts-Nevis should proceed to full independence it would be necessary to provide for the separation of Anguilla.
However, the new Government of St. Kitts-Nevis, elected in February this year, have not indicated any intention to proceed to full independent status. Nevertheless, they have sensibly agreed that the time has come to seek to satisfy their Anguillan neighbours. It is particularly welcome to learn that the St. Kitts-Nevis Government, in the words of their premier,
looks forward to continuing excellent relations
between themselves and Anguilla. The Opposition accept that the time is right for a constitutional change in the relationship between Anguilla and St. Kitts-Nevis.
However, the Bill provides not only for the separation of Anguilla on an appointed day, to be determined by an Order in Council, but, in clause 1(2) and (3), for the future constitutional development of Anguilla and for the possible granting of full independent status to Anguilla.
The Minister can help the House on that matter. I understand that Mr. Ronald Webster, the Chief Minister of Anguilla, indicated after his election that it was his party's intention to seek full internal self-government for Anguilla. In those circumstances, it is clearly right that the Bill should contain provisions to enable such a development to take place.
The Minister has said that it is not the practice of the Government to grant full internal self-government prior to the granting of full independence except as a paving step in that direction. However, I am not aware that the premier of Anguilla has yet expressed an intention that Anguilla should move in that direction, though he has apparently expressed the desire for full internal self-government. Are there continuing discussions with Mr. Webster to resolve what appears to be a slight contradiction between the position of the British Government and that of Anguilla?
On the other hand, the Bill goes somewhat further. It provides that, by the affirmative procedure, the House would have the opportunity to consider granting full independence to Anguilla. Is it not premature for the Government to make legislative provision for that eventuality, particularly since I am not aware that constitutional discussions have taken place between the Government and Anguilla that would suggest that it is the wish of the Anguillans to attain such independence?
In another place, Lord Trefgarne stated that there had been no indication that Anguilla intended to seek independence at an early date and he affirmed that, in accordance with the policy of successive Governments, constitutional advance towards independence would take place only in the context of an agreed timetable. It is right to ask the Minister why he has thought it appropriate that Parliament should, at this stage, legislate for an eventuality which appears not to have been foreshadowed in any recent discussions with Anguilla.
I raise the question because the more normal final constitutional step from dependent status to complete independence has not been by way of subordinate legislation but by way of the passage of a Bill through Parliament. That was the method used in the case of

Kiribati last year. Parliament passed an Act conferring independence, although I recognise that the case of Anguilla is not on all fours with that of Kiribati, because the Gilbert and Ellice Islands had not passed through associated status en route to final independence. However, independence Bills are the way in which successive Governments have sought to give independence to former colonies.
The second reason why I raise the issue is not a purely technical one. I recognise that under the terms of the Bill the Government retain responsibility for determining the pace and progress of Anguilla towards independence if Anguilla should seek it, but it is not inconceivable that circumstances might arise that would make a move to grant independence to Anguilla controversial. In those circumstances, Parliament might be dissatisfied not to be proceeding by the more normal constitutional route of a Bill that could be fully discussed in all its stages in the House.
The population of Anguilla is small—a mere 6,500. It is important to recognise the economic and political vulnerability of micro-States. Even such an island as Anguilla, with few indigenous natural resources, could, because of its location, attract outside interests which could be undesirable to the Anguillans. I believe that it is their hope that there will be some development of the tourist industry. In that may lie the best hope of greater economic self-sufficiency.
I was glad to hear the Minister speak of the present provisions for budgetary support and aid, which are generous. I hope that he will give further reassurance that that support and aid will continue to be available from the British Government after Anguilla's separation from St. Kitts-Nevis. The level of that aid must be affected to some extent by Anguilla's success in attracting inward investment. However, I am sure that the House will recognise that it has a continuing responsibility to provide economic support for the island until such time as it has established self-sufficiency on a basis that is welcome to the Anguillans and to all who have an interest in their prosperity, stability and security.
In passing, I should refer to a report in The Guardianon 30 May this year, which said that before the election of Mr. Webster as Chief Minister of Anguilla there had been some discussions with the United States about the possibility of its investing in Anguilla in return for the lease of Dog Island, which lies just off Anguilla, to be used as a United States naval weapons testing range. The report alleged that the proposal had caused some anguish in the area.
I do not know what substance there was in that report. Perhaps the Minister can say. Certainly, it would appear to lie within the British Government's responsibility, then and after the passage of the Bill, if any such arrangement were made, because it would clearly affect the external relations of Anguilla.
That illustrates the considerable sensitivity of the region to developments of such islands as Anguilla and the need for the British Government to act in the full consciousness that whatever they do will be subject to close scrutiny throughout the region. It is important that in the development of the Anguillan constitution the British Government should be aware that what they do will not be viewed in isolation. The Minister wisely said in opening that the Bill should in no sense be seen as a precedent. I am sure that that is right. It is also right that, in each case


where the Government retain some responsibility for the constitutional development of the countries in the Caribbean, proposals should be viewed separately and on their merits.
Considerable concern has been expressed in the past that island archipelagos in the Caribbean that are historically and geographically linked will undergo a process of political fragmentation. That danger has perhaps receded somewhat. However, following the Under-Secretary's discussions in London a year ago with the representatives of the then St. Kitts-Nevis Government, he told the House, in answer to a question, of a decision that a referendum should be held, 18 months after St Kitts-Nevis moved to independence as a unitary State, to decide whether Nevis should remain part of the State. I very much hope that that proposal also is water under the bridge.
I realise that since then there has been a change of Government in St. Kitts-Nevis and that the coalition is not moving in the direction of independence, at least as a priority. None the less, it would seem very much against the interests of the associated State that the two islands, which are only two miles apart, should be separated. I hope that that proposal has been dropped for good. Perhaps the Minister can give us some assurance on that matter.
I conclude by expressing the Opposition's satisfaction that the agreements have been reached which allow for the Bill, providing for the separation of Anguilla from St. Kitts-Nevis, to be brought forward. After the chequered history of the past 13 years, this seems like a sensible outcome. The Minister has already indicated when he expects the provisions separating Anguilla from St. Kitts-Nevis to take effect. He said that the House would have an opportunity to approve the date—I think, 19 December—which was in the Government's mind. That date does not appear on the face of the Bill. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us that indication.
On behalf of the Opposition, I offer good wishes to the people of Anguilla and hope that their new constitutional status, when it comes, will usher in a period of satisfying and stable prosperity.

Sir Nigel Fisher: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this short debate, because I was very much involved in the earlier stages of the long and not very happy St. Kitts-Anguilla saga, which it is to be hoped the Bill brings to an end. It all began in 1967, with the rebellion of the Anguillans against the Government of St. Kitts. Efforts by Commonwealth Office Ministers to mediate between the two islands were unsuccessful, and the then Minister of State, Lord Shepherd, decided towards the end of that year upon an unusual—I think unique—course of action. As far as I know, it had never been attempted before and has not been attempted since.
Instead of going to the Caribbean himself, or arranging for another Minister to go, Lord Shepherd decided to send out a Back-Bench mission with authority to negotiate a settlement on behalf of the then Labour Government and to install a British official on Anguilla to administer the island. As a Minister in the old Colonial Office under the previous Conservative Government, I had been responsible for the Caribbean area. I knew the West Indies very

well and—which was really the significant aspect—I was a friend of Mr. Robert Bradshaw, the then Chief Minister of St. Kitts.
Lord Shepherd asked me to go and to suggest the name of a Labour colleague to accompany me. Lord Northfield, then a Member of this House, really picked himself for the job, because he was already a close friend of mine and I knew that we should work well together, and he had a very good knowledge of West Indian politics and of how to deal with West Indian politicians, which is sometimes difficult.
Although we were not Ministers, we were given what amounted to temporary ministerial powers. We took sophisticated communications equipment with us and our own radio operator to give us constant contact with the Commonwealth Office in London. We also took a secretary or two and the overseas civil servant whom we hoped to leave on Anguilla as its administrator, if we succeeded in negotiating an interim solution to the problem.
When we arrived at the airstrip, we were met by a large crowd of armed and rather angry Anguillans, who thought that we had come to impose a settlement that they might not like. I succeeded in defusing this potentially dangerous situation by telling them at once, on the airstrip, that we had come simply to look, listen and learn, and not to try to force a solution on them. That relaxed the atmosphere a good deal, but our task was not easy, because the Anguillan leader, Mr. Webster, would not see or speak to Mr. Bradshaw in St. Kitts, and vice versa. They would have no contact with each other whatever, so Lord Northfield and I had to keep flying back and forth between St. Kitts and Anguilla in a little aeroplane that was put at our disposal for the purpose.
We had to devise proposals in Anguilla, then fly to St. Kitts to discuss them with Mr. Bradshaw, and then fly back to Anguilla with Mr. Bradshaw's amendments and counter-proposals, of which there were always several.
It was a difficult and very time-taking procedure, not made any easier by the fact that Mr. Webster was being advised by a very able American constitutional lawyer, by chance a namesake of mine, called Professor Fisher, from Harvard or Yale university, who was on Anguilla in order to secure the best terms he could for the island.
Further complications were the strong views and sometimes volatile personality of Mr. Bradshaw, the hatred—there was no other word for it—in which he was held by all Anguillans and the risk, which was very real, of telephoned leaks, from one island to the other while we were flying to and fro, of the latest compromise proposal that we were bringing to discuss with the leader in the other island.
I had, however, one advantage. I had worked for Lord Duncan-Sandys for some time when he was Colonial Secretary, and I had learnt a great deal from him about this sort of negotiation. He had also taught me the meaning of hard work and how to manage with very little sleep. We worked all day and most of every night for a fortnight and eventually succeeded in getting an interim settlement, which included the installation of the British administrator and which gave the British Government a whole year in which to negotiate a final solution. So we achieved all that we had been asked to do. I hope that all that does not sound too egotistical—I am afraid that it does—but it is quite an interesting story, which, as far as I know, has not been told before.
Unfortunately, the year that we gained was really completely wasted. Our initiatives were not followed up and at the end of the year no permanent arrangement had been made. Nothing was done to unify the two islands on a loose federal basis—which would not at that time have been impossible—and at the end of the year friction flared up again. A ministerial mission was sent out, which failed to achieve anything, and the situation remained unresolved.
It was not until the sad death of Robert Bradshaw, a year ago, that any real progress was possible. Now the Bill comes before the House, agreed by both the Anguillans and by the new St. Kitts-Nevis Government, and that is a major advance. Even now, in my view, it is not an ideal solution, because it involves an undesirable fragmentation of the Caribbean and could be said to encourage yet further fragmentation, such as in the case—which I hope very much will not happenof Antigua and Barbuda, and even between St. Kitts and Nevis, which would be absurd, as has been rightly said, when these islands are only two miles apart. I hope that no British Government would agree to that. There might even be a demand by the people of Carricou to break away from Grenada. The fragmentation of the Caribbean could become almost endless.
I acknowledge that there is and always has been more justification for the separation of St. Kitts and Anguilla than in the other cases that I have mentioned, and not only because of the difference in distance between them. They are quite different in other ways. The economy of St. Kitts is based on sugar, with a population descended from the slaves who were brought from Africa to work the sugar plantations.
The people of Anguilla, on the other hand, are descended mostly from pirates and seafaring people, and there is very little good agricultural land on that island. The Anguillan economy has been sustained in the past by remittances from overseas and by the sale of postage stamps. As has been mentioned, there is a possibility of developing tourism to some extent. I confirm that there is also a danger—Lord Northfield and I were well aware of it when we were there—of undesirable elements from the United States promising large-scale investment but importing gambling and guns and other undesirable activities, which the Anguillans must always guard against. A small community such as Anguilla is open to that sort of thing. It is not large enough to be independent, in my view, and might look in the future towards a federal relationship with the nearby French or Dutch colonies.
I prefer to think that there is still the possibility of an eventual federation of the British West Indies, which many of us tried so hard to build in the late 1950s and early 1960s but which collapsed partly, I think, because we tried, with the best of intentions, to impose it from the top— from Britain—whereas in order to succeed it would have to grow gradually from the grass roots in the West Indies.
At present there is no alternative to the Bill, so I cannot oppose it. I hope that we shall give it a Second Reading and pass all its stages tonight.

Mr. William Whitlock: I quote:
Whitlock is the head of Mafia and he organised armed toughs to throw him off the island in order to justify British armed intervention.

That was one of the things said in New York by Mr. Webster and Mr. Jeremiah Gumbs after I had been flown off the island at gunpoint in March 1969. It was one of the many things they said as an excuse for offering violence to a Minister of Her Majesty's Government.
That particular story—although all the others were beamed via Telstar around the world and printed in newspapers in this country—was apparently too apocryphal even for the media here to broadcast, although I am quite sure, such was the attitude of some people in the House—including some members of the Cabinet—that, had that been broadcast, they would have believed it.
The temptation to go down Memory Lane on the subject of Anguilla is very strong, but I shall resist it as far as I can because I have a strong feeling for the Anguillans. I believe that they have been the victims of 300 years of colonialism and neglect. The great difficulty in recent times is that they have been the victims of a handful of people wishing to exploit them. I have the feeling that had not some of them, including Mr. Webster, perhaps involuntarily, listened to those people, we would have reached long ago the situation which we have tonight.
For some time, there has been on the part of a small number of people on Anguilla a history of violence, intimidation, incendiarism and shootings. It does not need very much of that on a small island of 6,000 people to influence the people of the island greatly.
The Wooding commission which reported upon the situation in Anguilla in 1970 gave the details of those events. It reported also that in June 1967 there was an attack upon Government buildings in Basseterre on St. Kitts, which the commission felt was most definitely an attack upon the Government of the associated State, with weapons assembled on Anguilla.
In July 1967, when there was the conference in Barbados, Mr. Peter Adams, the Anguillan representative at the conference, said that there were arms on the island in the hands of undesirable characters and that he and three other members of the Anguillan council had been threatened with death. Mr. Adams, of course, was the man who attended the constitutional conference when the associated State was set up, and he did not disagree with the continued association of those three islands in the associated State.
The hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) mentioned the placing of Her Majesty's commissioner, Mr. Tony Lee, on the island and the fact that he was not supported in what he was trying to do. But he had an impossible task. He was seen by the Government of the State of St. Kitts-Nevis and Anguilla as someone who would bring the Anguillans to heel. However, he was seen by the Anguillans as a great prize who would so help them with their administration that they would be able to break away for ever from St. Kitts-Nevis. So Mr. Lee had an impossible task. Furthermore, when I became involved, I found that his reports back to Whitehall of intimidation and of his difficulties were ignored by the Foreign arid Commonwealth Office.
I comment briefly on the occasion when I went to the island. It must be remembered that I went to Anguilla with the agreement of the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis and Anguilla and with the agreement of Mr. Webster.
On the night before going to Anguilla, the supreme naval officer, West Indies, approached me on the island of Antigua and said that a wireless report had come out of


the island to the effect that three crates of machine guns had been landed on the island and that he had to tell me that his instructions from Whitehall were that, if I got into difficulty, he must not risk the life of a single marine to help me since he had no landing craft to take marines to the island. So I went to the island the following morning on a small plane, and I received a terrific reception from the Anguillans. I believe that there was the largest meeting on the airport that had ever occurred there.
I got off the plane and, immediately, those people who were alleged not long before to have voted for a republic of Anguilla sang "God Save the Queen" in all its verses, and I stood to attention by the plane feeling deeply moved, and then afterwards shook hands with Mr. Webster and was invited to accompany him to the airport building and make a speech.
In his speech, Mr. Webster asked the people of Anguilla to do all that they possibly could to preserve my safety and security, which was rather a peculiar statement from a man who was alleged to be totally in charge of all that went on there.
My own speech was punctuated by cheers. A recording of what happened at the airport was taken by my private secretary, who had dictating and recording equipment with him and was able to record all that was said. All that I said was interrupted by cheers as I went along, and my words were printed in a leaflet which was made available to the Anguillans.
In the course of my speech, I said:
Our wish is to ensure that you should be administered in a way acceptable to you. The proposal which I am authorised to make to you is that Her Majesty's Government should establish in Anguilla a commissioner appointed by Her Majesty the Queen on the advice of the right hon. Michael Stewart, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The man we have in mind is Mr. Tony Lee whom you already know well and who understands your problems and aspirations. It would be our intention that Her Majesty's Commissioner should deal direct with the people of Anguilla and remain on the island so long as the present difficult situation continues. We realise this may be some years. He would consult with you about the appointment of an Advisory Committee to assist him in his capacity as Her Majesty's Commissioner … We know how much the people of Anguilla wish to see development taking place in the island for the benefit of the whole population. The British Government would see that plans were made for development projects, and the Commissioner would consult you fully about these.
Therefore, I went with proposals for the development of 'the island which had already been made in 1967 but of which Mr. Webster apparently was unaware.
Those words were greeted at the airport with cheers from the assembled Anguillans. Mr. Webster had described Mr. Jeremiah Gumbs the year before as an evil man. He said that he would not allow him to have any further part in running affairs in Anguilla. What we did not know was that Jeremiah Gumbs had tried to stop the little aeroplane that brought me to Anguilla from leaving. This was happening while the meeting was in progress. He said to the pilot of the aircraft "Don't leave. Whitlock is not being allowed to stay and you will fly him out." However, the pilot went away and two small aircraft which fly between Anguilla and St. Martin were held on the airfield until eventually I was brought back, having been surrounded in the house where I had a meal by 100 men armed with rifles, revolvers and machine guns. I had resisted a number of ultimata until finally Mr. Emile Gumbs—no relation to Jeremiah Gumbs—who was then

a member of the Anguillan council, said after some gunfire "Minister, you must go. If you stay here until nightfall, this house will be burnt down in the good old Anguillan custom and we shall all die." I was conducted to the airport by those jeering characters, pushed on to a little plane and shot off to St. Martin.
After that, something happened about which I feel bitter. The great party of law and order which is represented in Government today acted as if it did not matter that people in the Caribbean were being intimidated by guns. They acted as if it did not matter that violence had been offered to a British Minister because, after all, he was a Labour Minister. The Conservative press behaved in a similar way.
Mr. Webster and Mr. Gumbs went to New York and said that there were no arms on the island. They said that what I said had happened was lies. After the British Cabinet had put policemen and soldiers on the island, almost no arms were found. No arms were found precisely because no search was made. In order not to upset the innocent as well as the guilty, nobody really searched for arms.
However, a report appeared in The Daily Telegraph five years later. A reporter went to see Mr. Webster, who told him:
I gave up a few of the weapons we had acquired.… The day before we knew the British were coming, we buried what we had in various places. I hid some of the things—the anti-tank guns, for instance, in conspicuous places, where Scotland Yard would be bound to find them, but the rest of the weapons are still on this island in places where no one could find them.
Can the Minister assure us that those weapons, which have been the cause of so much trouble in the past, are no longer there?
Behind Mr. Webster in that period were some very nasty characters, one of them Jeremiah Gumbs and another Mr. Holcombe, a white American, who wrote the so-called constitution of the Anguillan Republic. Holcombe was thought by the FBI to have associations with the Mafia. In that written constitution, the members of the supreme court of Anguilla needed to have no legal qualifications. Under that constitution, the development of the island was to be left in the hands of a few people. Holcombe was to be the sole franchisee for a large range of business activities on the island. He was granted complete exemption from the payment of all and every customs duty. He and his associates were granted exemption from tax. They were given the right to employ non-citizens of Anguilla, who were also to be exempt from tax.
Are those kind of people still around? Are they ready when Anguilla becomes independent, if it does, to take over where they left off in 1969? I think that this is a strong possibility. Like the hon. Member for Surbiton, I have long believed that the answer to the problems of the Caribbean is a federal one. It makes complete sense that all these small islands and the bigger ones should be administered as a federation. It is unfortunate that while some politicians in the Caribbean pay lip service to this idea, they do not do much to bring it about. To the man on a particular island, the man on the next island is a foreigner.
I feel strongly for the Anguillans. I hope very much that this latest stage of their development, which I am sure the House will enact, will bring them the happiness and the kind of development that they wish and deserve.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The House has listened with fascination to the hon. Members for Surbiton (Sir. N. Fisher) and Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock). I remember, as a Member of the House at the time, the excitement caused by the events in Anguilla. I had not heard before the full details of the experiences of the hon. Member for Surbiton, who clearly, as a resolver of differences between the descendants of pirates and slaves, has few equals in the House. The hon. Gentleman was probably modest in suggesting that all his labours, if that is the right way of describing how he had to travel back and forth by air between one place and another, were wasted. One would suspect that the work done at that time has had a lasting effect upon the success of the Bill before the House.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, North had what must have been an extremely alarming experience. The hon. Gentleman asked some pertinent questions about whether the people who were responsible for the events at that time remain about the place. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that his secretary had recorded the exchanges at the airport. I thought for a moment, as he turned and bent down towards the Bench, that the House was to be treated to a live tape recording. I wondered whether this would be in order. So far as I can recall, no one has ever tried it. I have never been on these islands, though I was brought up on an island and I have a certain understanding of the independence of mind that that creates. Islanders have the feeling that they are perhaps different from those elsewhere.
I welcome the Bill. In introducing it, the Government have recognised the wishes of the people of Anguilla. That, in simple terms, is good. I hope that the Government will not stop there.
I wish to raise only one substantial issue, if "substantial" is the right word. Lord Trefgarne, who introduced the Bill in another place, said that after the passage of the Bill the Government and people of Anguilla would have to choose between what was virtually the status quo, which, as he said, had obtained for the past decade, and independence. Of course, independence was not ruled out.
The Minister of State used the expression "a permanent solution". That puzzled me, especially as I do not believe that there is ever any such thing as a permanent solution. I gather that he meant that, whatever choice the people of Anguilla might opt for, it will be covered within the proposed legislation. I well take the points made by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in questioning this as a procedure for enabling independence to take place if, indeed, that happens.
I suggest that the Government at some early stage should face evolving a policy for the small dependencies that we still have dotted around the globe. Most of them are islands like Anguilla, such as the Falkland Islands, with which the Minister is well acquaint, to use a Scottish expression. Reference has been made to Baruda, which is making a case. Alternatively, there are the enclaves such as Gibraltar and Hong Kong. Such a policy should not necessarily represent making a simple choice between the status quo and independence, which appears to be what the Government have in mind, although the Minister was less specific about that than Lord Trefgarne in another place.
Such a policy should reflect the combined need for self-government in these places and for them to have some voice in this Parliament in some way if they are to have a permanent—that is, for as far ahead as one can see—relationship with the United Kingdom. If they are given that voice, there must develop an argument about how they should have a voice in our Parliament, whether that be by some special arrangement of this House or by special arrangements in another place. That is a matter for discussion.
In the long run, we could well take a leaf out of the French book. The French have approached the same problem in a very different way. Should we not also he thinking of some form of British Union on the lines of the French Union? If a small dependency indicates the desire to continue to be associated with the United Kingdom, it is inadequate to think merely in terms of a continuing paternal relationship. We need to seek new constructive relationships between the small dependencies and our Parliament. We need to do that fairly quickly as most of them have reached a stage where they will remain as they are or develop resentments that may lead them to opt for independence, which they are too small to sustain economically. I would appreciate it if the Minister could say whether there is any thinking in the Foreign Office on that. It applies especially to Anguilla but it is a general issue.
I shall not pursue the question raised by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland about the possibility of a future independence Bill He made that point clearly, but, in any event, I doubt whether that represents a viable solution for an island of 6,500 people.
Otherwise, I am very glad that the Government have reached agrement with St. Kitts and Nevis and that the dispute has been resolved amicably. I also welcome the Minister's commitment regarding the continuing maintenance of financial aid to the island from this country.

Mr. Kenneth Marks: I was intrigued by the thought of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) that Members should play back tape recordings in the House. I once asked Mr. Speaker whether I could use a blackboard in the Chamber to explain some points in a Bill that was being put forward. That request received such a frosty answer that I think that it will be a long time before any visual or aural aids are permitted here.
I do not intend to oppose the Bill. It has been obvious for a long time that the grouping of St. Kitts-Nevis and Anguilla in one associated State was not satisfactory. Frankly, however, talk of independence for an island of fewer than 7,000 people can present considerable difficulties for its Government and considerable dangers for its people.
It is some time since I visited the island of Anguilla. My visit was shortly after that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock). It was not so exciting. The Royal Air Force and the Royal Engineers were there. They were building a school—causing the people of other Caribbean islands to wonder whether, if they created enough fuss, they would get schools built, too.
I must support what the Minister has said about the neglect of this and other Caribbean islands by this country when we were a colonial Power and the need for us to


make up for that by helping Anguilla and the other islands in the present difficult times. I welcome what he said about grants and general support.
When talking to Mr. Webster when I was there, I felt that he had underestimated the difficulties of independence. For instance, he talked of having a teacher training college. At that time there was one Anguillan student in the college in Antigua, which covered the whole of that group of islands. He talked of training his own police force.
There was a danger then, I think—perhaps there is a danger now—of domination by American financial interests, and not necessarily of the most respectable kind.
I am glad that the Minister has said that he does not see independence as an eventual solution. As hon. Members have said, we ought to be looking at other alternatives for not only Anguilla but all islands with this problem, particularly in the Caribbean.
For the present, I take it that the island will be a British dependency. I want to ask the Minister about the administration of justice during this period. What are the arrangements for policing the island? What will they be under the Bill? What kind of court will deal with offenders? What arrangements will exist for appeals?
Will capital punishment apply to those found guilty of murder? From what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North said, it looks as though there will be a possibility of that, to say the least, in the future. Concerning capital punishment, it seems that the present system in the dependencies is totally out of date. In July I attended, as an observer on behalf of the House, a conference of the Caribbean countries which are members of the Commonwealth. I learnt that capital punishment applies in many of those islands and countries which are still British dependencies and that people were awaiting trial at that time.
On my return, I heard from the Minister of State—the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr.Blaker)—in his reply to a question, that the death penalty was still in force in Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Hong Kong, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands. He pointed out that at that time in Belize three men had been sentenced to death for murder and a fourth had been similarly sentenced on a retrial, and that three men in the British Virgin Islands and one in the Turks and Caicos Islands were held for trial on capital charges. I had asked about the exercise of the Crown's prerogative of mercy, and the Minister's answer was that it was delegated to governors, although Her Majesty had a residual power on the advice of the Government to exercise it.
This method of dealing with capital punishment appears to date back to the statement made in 1947 by the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Arthur Creech Jones, who said that the normal practice of the Secretary of State for the Colonies was not to intervene in individual cases and not to advise His Majesty to intervene. That was a long time ago. The colonial empire is not now what it was then, and the attitude of this Parliament to capital punishment is certainly not now what it was then.
The current dependent territories have opted to remain colonies and have not chosen independence. The Minister of State said that the exercise of the Crown's prerogative of mercy was delegated to governors, and that is a dreadful responsibility to place on Her Majesty's representatives in

these circumstances. When I tried to table parliamentary questions on individual cases, they were rejected on the ground that, when we had capital punishment here, it was felt that to allow questions added too much to the strain on the Home Secretary, who was faced with the awesome decision between reprieve and death.
Imagine the even greater stress there must be on the governors of these small islands and groups of islands. In the main, the territories have populations of only a few thousand. I except Hong Kong, of course. The governors are known to most of the people. They probably often know the families of the victims and of those found guilty of murder. That is too great a responsibility to place on any one man or woman.
My early-day motion No. 53, signed by 64 hon. Members with more to come, calls on the Government to advise Her Majesty to exercise the prerogative of mercy in all cases in these dependent territories. I hope that the Minister will make a statement on this position so far as it applies to Anguilla and, by implication, to the other dependencies. I hope that the Secretary of State will review the whole question of the administration of justice in these territories which choose to be dependent territories.
I support what has been said about the need for a new review, certainly of the administration of justice in Anguilla and in the other islands, but with a view possibly to looking once more at a federation. By that I do not necessarily mean one to include Jamaica and the other large islands, but to include the small islands that are meeting, as Anguilla will, considerable difficulties.

Mr. Ridley': The debate has been constructive and fascinating, in that we have had present, luckily, two of the participants in the dramas of Anguilla. Truly fascinating were the accounts both of my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) of the parts that they played in those events 13 years ago. I do not intend to comment upon those fascinating accounts, because perhaps the best contribution that I can make is to draw a veil over the events and concentrate more on the future.
My first happy task is to congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on his appointment to deal with foreign affairs from the Opposition Front Bench—what I might call his separation from prices and consumer protection, which will make him as happy as Anguilla will be to be separated from St. Kitts and Nevis.
The hon. Member asked me a number of questions, and I shall try to answer them all, because they deserve answers. I can reassure him on the question of future aid. We will do all possible within our budget to keep up a decent level of assistance to Anguilla and other dependencies. It is our hope that we can concentrate on the dependencies, even if cuts take place, where there is difficulty in getting other donors to help. That we have done, and that we do.
I understand that the United States Government have at present no plans to rent Dog Island, which will probably mean that our aid programme is even more important than it might otherwise have been. I can confirm that 19 December is the day that we intend to appoint by order for the separation if the House gives the Bill a Third Reading tonight.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister said that the United States Government do not wish to rent Dog Island. Does that imply that if the United States Government wished to rent it the British Government would be happy that it should be leased?

Mr. Ridley: That is hypothetical, but it would be a matter upon which the Anguillans should express a view. As it is not a proposal, we cannot assess the financial consequences of saying "Yes" or "No". Therefore, it is difficult to answer that hypothesis.

Mr. Maclennan: I accept that what I said was hypothetical, and I do not want to press the Minister on that, but it is fair to press him on the constitutional responsibility that the Government would have in the matter if such a request were forthcoming. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is not in a position tonight to give the Government's attitude to such a request, but it would seem to touch directly on matters of external relations and defence, which, as I understand the Bill, would remain with the Government. Although the opinion of the Anguillans would be crucial, surely the decision would be one for the Government.

Mr. Ridley: I confirm the constitutional point made by the hon. Gentleman. I said that obviously the Government would be extremely influenced by the views of the Anguillans.
That brings me conveniently to the hon. Gentleman's first point, relating to the future status of the constitution of Anguilla. The question is tied up with independence, which was raised by other hon. Members. I merely included a provision for independence in the Bill because at some stage—one cannot tell what the circumstances would be—it might be agreed that Anguilla should proceed to independence. A provision in the Bill facilitates that.
The associated States under the West Indies Acts may proceed to independence simply through an Order in Council. In my opinion, it would be wrong if St. Kitts-Nevis were able to proceed to independence simply through an affirmative order of this House whereas Anguilla needed a separate Bill to achieve the same result. Therefore, in order to restore to Anguilla the constitution of an associated State, which it loses when the Bill becomes law by being separated from St. Kitts-Nevis, it seems right that we should put it in the same position and give it the same opportunity for parliamentary control in regard to independence.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the possibility of internal self-government as a half-way house between the present position and independence. That brings me back to Dog Island. The only powers that are retained in full internal self-government by the British Government are the powers of defence, foreign affairs and external security generally. In cases where those responsibilities remain, we have found that it is extremely difficult to draw the line between what properly falls in those portfolios and what is internal. Dog Island is a perfect example of the overlap between the two.
Many of the things done under the powers of full internal self-government can have far-reaching consequences for foreign policy. I shall not elaborate, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland can think of two or three examples in the West Indies where internal activities have caused foreign policy

complications. In general, it is not a solution to give internal self-government other than for a brief period in order to provide experience prior to full independence. That is not our policy for a State, such as Anguilla, that does not wish to proceed to independence.
The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) felt that we should find a new policy for dependencies that fell in a certain category. Such dependencies do not want to proceed to independence, yet they want the greatest possible amount of internal self-government. We try to find the greatest possible measure of internal self-government that is consistent with the constraint on the British Government to secure their defence and to conduct their foreign policies.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Inverness was serious when he suggested that such dependencies should be represented in this House, just as the French dependencies are represented in France. The Hong Kong party would greatly outnumber the Liberal Party if it had a franchise in Parliament. Given Hong Kong's large population, it would act as a major determinant in British politics. One could exclude Hong Kong, but I cannot think of a logical argument to the effect that some islands should be included and others should not. Therefore, the French alternative is not viable.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The Minister is being slightly less fair than is his wont. One could exclude Hong Kong on the ground that as it has a certain population it can take care of itself. I was thinking of the tiny places that exist all over the globe, such as Anguilla, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, which probably cannot look after themselves but which wish to retain a relationship. Why should we not consider what the French have done?

Mr. Ridley: Such territories have their own elected councils or Parliaments and their own systems of democracy. The relationship is maintained through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, by visits, contacts, and so on. However, one cannot pick some territories because they are small and fit the hon. Gentleman's book, and leave out others. Although we search for a new relationship, it is never clear what that relationship should be.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) raised the subject of the death penalty. The police, the legal system and the administration of the courts are for the dependency to arrange. They are internal matters. The penalties available, including capital punishment, are also internal matters for all these dependencies. In the associated States, of which Anguilla is at present one, capital punishment remains on the statute book. The hon. Gentleman did not get that answer to his question, because he asked about dependencies and not about associated States.
The Government will not depart from past practice, whereby the penalties under the law are a matter for the dependency. With one Opposition Member pressing me further to give a greater degree of autonomy to dependencies, I cannot at the same time agree that it would be right for the Government to take away the power of deciding which penalties are appropriate in the circumstances of that dependency.

Mr. Marks: Does the Minister agree that there is considerable strain on the governors concerned? The British Government have retained their powers to advise


the Queen to use the prerogative. It is, therefore, not entirely a matter for the dependencies. All I am asking is that the Government should use the power that they have retained to avoid the difficulty of a governor on a small island being faced with the same situation as the Home Secretary has been faced with in the past.

Mr. Ridley: I was coming to that point. It is possible for the House to lay down everything about how a dependency should be run, but in the generally agreed move towards giving greater local autonomy it seems to me right that the dependency should make up its mind whether it wishes to have the death penalty. Indeed, dependencies feel extremely strongly about the matter, particularly in the West Indies, and they nearly all retain the death penalty. If that is what they want, in the circumstances of their islands, I question very much whether it is for this House to take away from them the right to administer the death penalty. The hon. Gentleman must remember that we are talking about the circumstances not in this island but in the Caribbean island where that may arise. To try to influence the decision in that delicate matter has great implications for allowing dependencies to decide what is right for them in their own circumstances and seeking to leave it to them to judge. That is the policy of the Government.
The last point that I must seek to answer is the most fundamental one running through many speeches. The hon. Members for Nottingham, North and for Inverness and my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton regretted but understood the reason for the passing of the federation and wondered whether the greatest evil that the Caribbean could suffer would be greater fragmentation in the future. I agree with that general view. Everyone in the Caribbean does who knows about it. It is a peculiarly perverse trait of the Caribbean that everyone wants closer co-operation and more federation, but the closer one is to another island the more one dislikes the people who live there. It is that problem with which we have grappled in relation to Anguilla, St. Kitts and Nevis.
The difficulty that I had in trying to persuade St. Kitts and Nevis to accept common statehood was so great that

I had to concede that some device must be built in to allow the people of Nevis to determine their future, although that, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland says, has fallen with the fall of the Lee Moore Government. One has to go about it the other way.
First, it is highly counter-productive for us, with our past association and our attempt to impose the federaion before, to propose solutions on behalf of other people at this time. Secondly, it is only through independence that the real nature of the economy, defence and security problems become apparent. As they become apparent, so the obvious advantages of a closer relationship, leading perhaps to some form of federation or confederation, become more obvious.
I am encouraged by the recent talks and signs of progress among the Caribbean islands that they should like to draw closer together. The argument in favour of encouraging independence—not pushing people—in the Caribbean amongst the remaining islands, a number of which are still as dependencies, is that the experience of being independent brings out more clearly the obvious advantages of seeking a closer relationship. It may be that the federation that failed can best be replaced by pressing on with our solutions to the various constitutional problems and encouraging those who wish to become independent, so that out of that new situation will come closer economic co-operation for the future.
Those are the points on which I have been asked to comment. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have welcomed the Bill, particularly those who gave their best wishes to the people of Anguilla now that this long saga is finally coming to an end, happily and prosperously, we hope for the Anguillans.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a committee of the whole House.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Orders of the Day — Prisons

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): I beg to move,
That the draft Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980 (Continuance No. 2) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 9 December, be approved.
The House will recall that during the debate on the first renewal of part I of the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act I made it absolutely clear that, unless the prison officers' industrial action ceased" and they returned to their normal duties, the Government would have to ask for a further renewal. The action has not ceased and I therefore have to ask the House to approve the order before it for the continuation of the provisions of part I of the Act for one month from 29 December.
In asking the House for a further renewal, I must stress the Government's determination to end this dispute. The meetings to which I referred in my speech on 27 November between the Home Office and the POA have continued and, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) in answer to a question on 8 December, we have made the POA an offer. When the House debated the first continuance order, a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk), pressed me to give details of that offer. At that stage it would have been premature to do so. However, I can now inform the House of the broad outlines of the proposals that we have put to the POA.
As the House will be aware, we stressed throughout the dispute that the way forward lay in the adoption of a new duty system for prison officers which would eliminate the anomalies created by the existing systems. Accordingly, the central feature of the offer that we have made is a new attendance system common to all prison establishments. The system which is at present under consideration eliminates the built-in overtime inherent in the present system. The present system is based on a working week of 40 hours which does not include meal breaks. The new gross working week would be 42 hours including five hours for meal breaks. This would be an effective reduction of three hours a week.
If the new system proves acceptable, the change from net to gross hours working will be introduced without abatement of basic pay, in recognition of the elimination of built-in overtime in exchange for the three-hour reduction that I have just mentioned. In recognition of those undertakings, we have asked the POA to return to normal working by no later than 20 December 1980, not to pursue any claims for unscheduled meal breaks in respect of periods prior to 21 December1980 and to agree in principle to the introduction of the new duty system as soon as possible—in practice, by 1 April 1981.
The new duty system will be common to all prison establishments, in place of the two systems now being worked, with their uneven rewards for staff. As part of the transitional arrangements to the new duty system, and wholly dependent upon its actually having been introduced no later than 1 April 1981, the Home Office has agreed to make various payments for meal breaks in establishments which have not qualified for them from 21 December 1980 up to the introduction of the new scheme. We would also propose, in the context of a wider agreement with the POA, to introduce a scheme for advances of pay for house

purchase and to widen the eligibiity of staff in quarters with a garage entitlement to relief of garage rental. We are also negotiating a simpler and more equitable basis for rent allowance.
I have explained the terms of the proposals that we have put to the POA in some detail because I wish to show that the Government are doing all that they reasonably can to end the dispute and the need for the emergency powers I seek to have renewed. The proposals that we have made represent a substantial improvement in prison officers' conditions of service. They are also a step forward for the prison service. Prison officers generally have been aware of the proposals and are to discuss them at a delegate conference to be held tomorrow and on Wednesday. I very much hope that the POA will grasp the opportunity presented by the offer and at least suspend their action pending a final decision by them on the new duty system which is due to be taken early in January.
I am aware that the combination of the Christmas recess and the imminence of the POA delegate conference has meant that we have had to ask for a renewal of the emergency powers for a period when they might not be needed. However, there can be no guarantee of the outcome of the conference or, even if the POA action is suspended, of compliance by all the POA's branches. In these circumstances, we thought it right to come to the House to ask for a renewal of part I of the Act should it be necessary. Moreover, my right hon. Friend does not feel that it would be right to give up the emergency provisions until the POA action is ended. A suspension of the action, as opposed to a final resolution of the dispute, while welcome, would be insufficient to justify allowing the provisions to lapse. I shall, however, in reviewing the operation of the Act in the brief period since we last debated the matter, indicate the action that the Government would take on each provision in the event of a suspension of the industrial action.
The prison officers' action has continued at about the same level of intensity in most establishments since I last reported to the House on 27 November. They have continued to refuse to receive large numbers of prisoners remanded or sentenced by the courts. The number of prisoners in police cells has risen slowly to about 3,700, and Frankland prison and Rollestone camp now hold about 600 and 350 respectively. The police have continued to cope with the additional burdens placed on them by the prison officers' actions. However, increasing familiarity with the situation should not blind anyone to the very considerable difficulties caused to the police by the need to care for 3,700 prisoners in addition to their normal duties.
I should also like to emphasise once more the unsuitability of police cells for the prolonged detention of prisoners. Some comment has been made recently on the reduction in overcrowding in local prisons effected by the dispute. The House will be aware that that is only one side of the coin. The industrial action has not only reduced overcrowding but restricted prison regimes and facilities for prisoners. Moreover, any reduction in overcrowding has been achieved at the expense of the many hundreds of prisoners in unsatisfactory conditions in police cells.
So long as the prison officers' action and its consequences persist, section 1 of the Act, which enables prisoners to be held in places approved for the purpose by the Secretary of State, will be needed. However, if the action is suspended or terminated, I undertake that we


shall move the prisoners in police cells and in Frankland and Rollestone into prisons as quickly as possible. If the action is comprehensively suspended or terminated by the forthcoming delegate conference, we shall hope to complete the operation before Christmas, although this would depend on a number of factors, including the extent and speed with which prison officers in particular establishments reverted to normal working. If industrial action continues, it is possible that some prisoners will have to remain in police cells or in Frankland and Rollestone into the new year and hence into the currency of the order.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the detailed manner in which he has given this information to the House. Could he go further? He will recall that there was some discussion in the House, and also in the other place, about the amenities or facilities that are available for prisoners in police cells. Concern was expressed, for instance, that prisoners are there for 24 hours out of every 24 hours, have now been held for 10 weeks and, if we look on the most pessimistic side, may be there over Christmas. What is the Home Office doing or what does it intend to do to ensure that prisoners in those conditions have proper facilities and amenities?

Mr. Brittan: That depends on what is meant by "proper facilities and amenities". There is no way of avoiding a situation in which, as a result of the action taken by prison officers, the prisoners in police cells do not have all the facilities that would be available to them in prisons. That is one of the consequences of the action that has been taken. Nothing can be done to convert police cells into prisons as such. They are unsatisfactory places for prisoners to be held for any substantial period.
Once Frankland and Rollestone have been emptied, they will take no more prisoners unless there is a resumption of the industrial action. They will, however, be maintained in a state of readiness until the action is formally ended. Frankland will then continue its progress towards opening as a dispersal prison.
Section 2 of the Act will also be needed while the prison officers' action continues. However, if the industrial action ends while the continuance order remains in force, we have to contemplate a situation in which it could be possible for remand prisoners to be produced and returned to prison in the ordinary way, despite the fact that the normal requirements of the law for the regular production of remand prisoners remain suspended. In that event, we would ask the magistrates' courts to use their powers under section 2 to direct the production of all remand prisoners at the end of their remand period. That would, in effect, restore the remand situation to normal. Naturally, there would have to be some interval between the end of the dispute and the resumption of normal remand appearances. Prisoners would have to be got back into prison, and the courts, the prisons and the police would all have to plan for the resumption. There may also be difficulties if the action is not terminated by all those taking part. These are largely matters that would have to be settled locally. But all concerned would be strongly urged to get the remand situation back to normal as soon as possible. I have no doubt at all that the courts—within whose judicial discretion the decision to order production lies—would

reflect the general concern of all of us to see the criminal justice system working normally as soon as humanly possible.
When we last debated the continuation of the Act, various hon. Members asked for statistics on the way in which section 2 was working. I said that these might be available at a later date. Unfortunately, the information that was sought is not routinely recorded by all magistrates' courts and a special exercise has been necessary. Although it has not proved possible to mount an exercise that gave full national coverage, 50 courts, which deal with something like one-quarter of all criminal proceedings in England and Wales, have provided numerical data for the week 6–12 December.
The 50 courts tell us that in that week they remanded 345 defendants in custody in their absence. All save 23 of them were legally represented, and it appears that the 23 were unrepresented either because they had refused representation or because their legal representative did not attend court on the day. During the same week, however, a higher number of defendants—394—appeared in the 50 courts in person following a direction that had been given by the court under section 2. These figures are no more than a snapshot, but I think that the House will agree that they are generally reassuring about the way in which the courts are working under the Act.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: the Minister's noble Friend said in another place that a court usually called back a defendant when his legal representative asked for that. From the hon. and learned Gentleman's analysis of the 50 courts contacted, can he say roughly what percentage have appeared back in court—what "usually" means?
Secondly, where someone has been brought out of a prison because the court has requested it, has it been possible for him to be taken back to that prison?

Mr. Brittan: I do not have the figures in the form in which the hon. Gentleman has asked for them, so I cannot give him a percentage. But I think that the facts that I have given, which show the number of defendants who have been appearing in court as a result of a direction under section 2–394, compared with 345 remanded in custody in their absence, of whom all but 23 are legally represented—give a picture of what has been happening in the courts. I hope that the House will find that helpful, even if the information is not in precisely the form that the hon. Gentleman asked for.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second question, I am not aware of difficulties in the sense that people who have been brought up under section 2 have not been able to get back into prison. However, I shall check during the debate that the information that I have just given is correct.
When the House debated the first continuance order, hon. Members expressed particular concern about difficulties in obtaining psychiatric or medical reports. Prison medical officers have been asked to carry out the necessary examinations on defendants held in police custody whenever this is possible, but there are some problems in this. Seven of the courts we consulted told us that they had encountered difficulties, though in a number of these it had been possible to make alternative arrangements. None of the 50 courts had found any trouble with social inquiry reports.
The House will recall that sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act enable the Secretary of State to reduce the prison


population by authorising the release of unconvicted and unsentenced prisoners, by restricting the powers of the courts to imprison for the non-payment of money and by authorising the early release of prisoners up to six months before the date when they would otherwise have been released. My right hon. Friend and I have made clear our reluctance to use these provisions unless they proved absolutely necessary.
I explained in my speech on the first order that the combination of a fall in the prison population from 44,000 to 41,200 and the provision of additional accommodation outside the prison system in Frankland and Rollestone had enabled us to cope without resort to more extreme measures. That remains the position. The prison population has hovered around 41,000 for the last two weeks, and—despite an increase to 4,600 in the number of prisoners who have had to be accommodated outside the prison system—we have continued to cope.
If the prison officers' action continues, there remains a possibility that it will become necessary to use these emergency powers as well, and I must therefore ask the House to renew them. However, I can undertake to the House that, once the officers' action has been comprehensively suspended or ended, we shall not use sections 3, 4 and 5.
I hope that I have said enough today to convince the House of the Government's determination to end this dispute, which has disrupted the criminal justice system and interrupted the progress which was being made towards the improvements recommended by the May Committee. The offer we have made to the POA is, I believe, not only fair and, indeed, beneficial to the prison officers but provides a much sounder basis for the management of the prison service. I am sure that the House will share my hope that the prison officers will accept that offer and end their action. However, for the reasons that I have explained, I must ask the House to approve the order.

Dr. Shirley Summerskill: It was with great reluctance that the House gave a Second Reading to the Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Bill on 28 October. In fact, 77 of my hon. Friends voted against it and only 165 hon. Members voted for it. At that time, we expressed the hope that the Act would never need to be enforced in practice. Its provisions still represent a serious infringement of basic civil liberties and contain unprecedented powers.
The prison officers' dispute has now lasted for over 10 weeks. Nobody wants to see what started as temporary provisions become in practice more permanent ones, so, before the powers are renewed for a further period, it was right that the Minister should have given the House information concerning the effect on the prisons of the prison officers' dispute and the negotiations taking place with a view to ending the dispute.
With regard to the first point—the effect in the prisons and on police cells—I understood the Minister of State to say that there had been little or no escalation of the dispute since he last spoke to the House. There have been reports that the disruption of prison routine, controlled unlocking of cells and threats to end visits by friends and relatives have now spread to five more prisons. I shall be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman will confirm whether this is the case and, perhaps, give the House more details.
The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that the number of prisoners in police cells has risen from 3,500, when we last renewed the order, to 3,700 now. While I recognise the difficulties that the task imposes upon the police, I hope that the Minister will reply to questons that he was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) during the last debate, to which I do not think he replied at the time. How many prisoners have escaped while in police custody, and also from the Army camps, since the prison officers' dispute began? This is, I feel, a matter of legitimate public and parliamentary interest, as well as throwing light on the efficiency of emergency procedures for guarding the prisons.
With regard to the negotiations taking place, the House has been patient and understanding concerning the Government's role in finding a satisfactory solution to this unhappy dispute. We know that there has been a series of meetings, both formal and informal, with the Prison Officers' Association, and I welcome the detailed account that we have heard tonight of the offer that has been made.
I also welcome the optimistic tone of the Minister's speech. The fact that he is making plans for the eventual ending of the dispute is a hopeful sign. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House hope that there will be a satisfactory, fair and speedy end to the dispute.
The Minister has been able to provide some welcome statistics concerning section 2 of the Act which were lacking in his last speech. That is the most objectionable secton of the Act and has caused the most criticism, involving, as it does, the legal rights of an arrested person.
I am pleased to note that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) is present, as I want to refer to a most pertinent question that he asked in the last debate and may intend to ask on this occasion. He asked how many instances there had been of courts making orders under the provisions of section 2, which enabled a court to require an offender to be brought back before the expiration of the remand period. As I recall, the hon. Gentleman did not receive an answer from his hon. and learned Friend, and many of us would like to know the answer.
There was another question from my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon). That, too, was not answered. If the Minister still feels that he cannot answer all these questions, perhaps he will let hon. Members have answers in writing.
The question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for York related to the number of refusals of applications for legal aid made on the first occasion that a defendant appeared before a court if the court decided to remand him in custody. I feel that, if possible, we should have information on these matters—if not tonight, in the weeks ahead—although I appreciate that the statistics are not easily available without a survey of at least 50 courts.
The probation officers, who have special knowledge and experience of this section of the Act, have expressed great concern about its effects and their strong opposition to it. They assert that, as prisoners have lost their long-standing and automatic right to appear in court every eight days, there must be prisoners in the cells remaining totally unknown to the probation service and not in contact with any form of legal advice. I hope that the Minister can give some reassurance to probation officers and to the House that these fears are unfounded.
The Minister said that sections 4 and 5 had still not been implemented because it had not been found necessary to


implement them. It is ironic that the two least objectionable sections have not been used. Section 4 relates to the restriction on committal for the non-payment of money. The overcrowding of local prisons often results from people being there for the non-payment of fines and maintenance payments. The Opposition have said that we would be very sympathetic to making the legislation in section 4 permanent, and many outside who work with offenders have agreed that the overcrowding in our prisons could be lessened to some extent by taking out of them offenders who are there for the non-payment of fines and maintenance payments.
Section 5 concerns the early release of prisoners. Here again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South, who spoke in the last debate, supported—

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my hon. Friend now saying—I heartily approve if she is—that it is now party policy not to imprison fine and maintenance defaulters and that the next Labour Government will not continue the present system?

Dr. Summerskill: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) knows, the Labour Party's election manifesto will be drawn up by the Shadow Cabinet and the national executive committee. Unfortunately, I am not a member of either.
I had just referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South, a former Home Secretary, who until recently was Shadow Home Secretary. When my right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, he supported a 50 per cent. release scheme for those with sentences of between two and three years and also for those keeping parole. That is a version of what is contained in section 5.
Through the provision for the release of prisoners, we could make a virtue out of necessity in this legislation. All informed opinion among people working with offenders over many years has been that the most effective way to reduce permanently the unacceptable level of the prison population is by the greater use of non-custodial sentences, of shorter sentences and of bail. If the provision in section 5 can create a climate of opinion which will influence sentencing practices in the courts, it will have served a useful purpose.
We all want to see a significant reduction in the prison population. I welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's announcement that there has been a further fall in the number of prisoners in custody since he spoke last—from 41,200 to about 41,000 in the last week or two. We should all very much like an evaluation of the reasons for this fall. Have sentencing practices altered in that fewer people have been sentenced to prison, or have more been given bail? With which offences are the changes connected? It is most important for future prison policy to know the reason for the fall, so that some benefit can be gained from the reduction. We hope that it is not temporary, that it is not simply connected with the Act and that it will be a permanent feature.
We all wish a speedy, satisfactory and permanent solution to the prison officers' dispute. Their unique and difficult work is fully appreciated by the House. While we await the solution, the arguments against the order are as strong and as relevant as when the Bill was introduced.

They involve the rights of detained people. I hope and trust that this will be the last time that the House will be asked to renew the order.

Mr. Clive Soley: Life will not be the same when this order does not come before the House. Nevertheless, we shall be glad to see the end of it. I am grateful to the Minister for spelling out in detail the answers to some of our questions and anxieties.
I do not want to go over all the arguments, not least the penal reform by default argument. The least said about that, the better. I should like to ask the Minister several questions. He has already dealt with the arrangements for psychiatric and social reports. I appreciate that he may not be able to answer all my questions tonight.
I understand that prisoners are sometimes moved arbitrarily between police stations and the emergency prisons. After attending court they may be taken to a different place and a different area. That causes disruption to links with family, friends and lawyers. Is that happening on a large scale?
I am not entirely satisfied about the care being shown to youngsters in the 17 to 21-year-old bracket. I appreciate that no hard and fast line can be drawn. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments in the last debate about the 16-year-olds and younger people. Many 17 to 21-year-olds are experiencing custody for the first time in disturbing and emotional conditions. Some of the people with whom they are forced to live have social and psychological problems infinitely greater than those of the young persons.
I understand that medical checks were made on prisoners when they were admitted to prison. Are such checks being carried out in the police stations by police surgeons or other people? What is the cost? Some years ago it cost £9 per person for each police surgeon's visit. Is each prisoner being examined, and is that the cost?
The bail beds issue is important, because it indicates how many people at the disadvantaged end of the social scale are not looked after adequately. Are they going straight into custody, or are attempts being made to put them into bail hostels? A few weeks ago vacancies existed in bail hostels, although vacancies did not exist before the Act was passed. One had reason to assume that people who would have been able to use bail beds in bail hostels are now being held in police stations.
Given the time that the Act is operational, I am increasingly worried about the effect on the physical and emotional health of people either in prisons or police stations who are held in their cells for 20 hours or more each day. Anybody who has tried locking himself up in one room for 20 hours will know how difficult that is.
It is known that in some cases people are spending 23 hours in a cell—often a small cell. My hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) has already raised the question of the facilities available for them. Do they have more ready access to books and games? To be locked up in any circumstances for 23 hours is extremely destructive psychologically. One would not expect a person to recover from such an experience if it had been going on for some months, as looks like being the case, unless some real effort is made to lessen the impact.
One should not understate, by looking at the psychiatric side, the seriousness in terms of a person's medical health,


which can deteriorate through long periods of incarceration in a single room without adequate exercise or alternative activities.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the importance of the issue generally. There has been a lot of discussion about it. I have always said that the dispute was not necessary and that if it had gone to arbitration it could have been avoided. Section 2 of the Act is particularly offensive. It deals with the right of people to come back to court. My concern has always been for those who are not represented. They are the ones who can most arbitrarily suffer.
During the last two weeks, I have taken the opportunity to look at a number of books and associated documents that relate to the workings of habeas corpus. Wade and Phillips, in "Constitutional Law", say:
The remedy of habeas corpus has been one of the most distinctive contributions of English law to the international vocabulary of constitutional law.
It goes on to say that this is expressed, for example, in the European Convention of Human Rights, which states:
Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.
The emphasis, of course, is on the word "speedily". Wade and Phillips also state:
Accordingly English law provides in the writ of habeas corpus a means by which a person detained without legal justification may secure prompt release.
I put the emphasis on the word "prompt" because there is good reason to believe that many of the less able people in police cells and elsewhere are not fully aware of their rights and are not able to use them.
Dicey, in "The Law of the Constitution", said
Liberty is not secure unless the law, in addition to punishing every kind of interference with a man's lawful freedom, provides adequate security that every one who without legal justification is placed in confinement shall be able to get free.
The Act, whose provisions we shall have approved on three occasions if it goes through tonight, as I am sure it will, against my wishes, is an interference with that declaration and leads to arbitrary justice. It is arbitrary in the sense that some people who are better represented and better able to speak for themselves will get a better service and be able to appear before a court whereas someone not so able will be less likely to achieve that situation. That is a serious action for the House to have taken. I do not feel that it has been justified by the industrial dispute with the prison officers. It could have been dealt with by other means. I still wish that this had been so.

Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Hon. Members insisted that the renewal of the Act should be debated at monthly intervals so that the Minister would have to come to the House to report on the conditions in which prisoners were being held in police cells, given the emergency nature of the situation. The House rightly took a serious view at the time of the facilities and amenities, or restrictions on normal privileges, that would apply to prisoners in police cells.
I intervene in the debate only because the Minister has not so far been able to give a detailed and satisfactory reply to the questions that my hon. Friends and I put to him about what the Government are doing to try to alleviate what we all accept are necessarily the deplorable conditions in police cells. No one is criticising the police

or the resources that they have at their disposal. It is important, however, now that many prisoners will have been held in those conditions for 10 weeks—indeed, 4,000 prisoners may be held for a further month or more during Christmas if the dispute is not settled—and the House will not be able to debate the issue again before January. I hope that such a debate will not be necessary. Will the Minister say exactly what the Home Office is doing to provide games, books, diversions or amusements for prisoners who are locked up for long periods during the day in clearly unsatisfactory conditions in police cells? It has been reported that all the facilities that have been made available to prisoners have been supplied voluntarily by the police, often from their personal resources.
What is the Home Office doing to help? What facilities is it providing for education, welfare or social back-up? We need to know, through the whole gamut of the demands that may be made by prisoners of all sorts, what provision the Prison Department is making to try to ensure that prisoners' rights are maintained and respected and that their needs for welfare advice and social welfare work as well as legal advice are dealt with adequately.
I hope that the Minister will refer to especially vulnerable and difficult categories of prisoner. How many mentally disordered prisoners are being held currently in police cells? As the hon. and learned Gentleman recogises, they pose a tremendously difficult control problem within a prison. One mentally disordered prisoner in a police cell for a long period could pose a disproportionately heavy control problem on the police force.
How many mentally disordered prisoners are there, and what medical care and treatment is being provided? Are there any alcoholics? Are there any drug addicts? If there are prisoners in those categories, what provision is made and what resources is the Home Office providing for them?
The Minister has come to the House in a forthright and forthcoming manner. He has supplied us with the details that we expected from him. He has answered many of the questions that were asked when we debated these matters on the previous occasion. However, it is necessary for him to give more than a snapshot picture of what conditions are like in police cells for prisoners who have now been in them, through no fault of their own, for an excessively long time and who are being denied their legal rights as well as many other facilities. The Minister has a duty to inform the House precisely what the Home Office has done.
If the Minister has not done any of the things to which I have been referring, I hope that he will tell us why that has not been possible. I hope that he will give the House an assurance that if the delegate conference and the ballot that will be held by the Prison Officers' Association go against the Home Secretary, he will tell us what further action the Government will take to alleviate conditions within police cells.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) said that the criticism of the Act that we are continuing by order is that it derogates from the procedures of habeas corpus as instituted by the writ. That is not so. The purpose of the habeas corpus procedure is to ensure that no person is held


unlawfully. That is the sole and simple purpose of the writ. There is nothing in the Act continued by order that in any way derogates from that principle.
The criticism of section 2 is that it enables people to he held unlawfully. It does not do that. It removes defendants from the supervisory eye of the courts. As a general proposition, it is desirable that defendants are brought before the court every eight days to ensure that they have ample opportunity to make representations about conditions and, where desirable, to enable them to make further application for bail. It is that aspect of the section that causes some hon. Members concern. The section does not derogate from the provisions of habeas corpus.

Mr. Soley: I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has any experience of the real world. There are some who appear in court unable effectively to speak for themselves. As a result, they are immediately held in custody. They are still unable to speak for themselves in that circumstance. That can result—the hon. Gentleman' can hardly deny this—in their being held unlawfully when there may be no lawful reason for them to be held. The fact that they are not able to speak for themselves or that someone else has not spoken for them is not a satisfactory excuse.

Mr. Hogg: Before the hon. Member makes interventions of that kind, he should reflect that I have appeared in a great many more courts than he has ever done and have acted for more defendants than he is ever likely to do. The plain fact is that the hon. Member's experience—as a probation officer, I think—does not equip him to understand the workings of the criminal courts, nor does it provide an adequate basis on which to make remarks of that kind.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: So there. Take 500 lines.

Mr. Hogg: The important point to realise is that the hon. Member should not come into this place and talk about habeas corpus without understanding its scope and purpose. The critisism of the hon. Member is that he is making points which have little or no merit.
Turning to the more serious matter—and the hon. Member's contributions do not come within the scope of that description—the criticism of section 2, as I say—the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) would be well advised to listen, because he might learn something—is that it means that defendants do not come before the courts on a regular basis.
As a long-term approach, that would be wholly unacceptable, but in the short term it is perfectly acceptable. It is acceptable basically for three reasons: first, because of the steps that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State has taken to ensure that legal aid is available; secondly, because of the emphasis that has been placed upon the granting of bail in every relevant situation; and thirdly, because the courts have a power to require the defendant to be brought back before the court at a regular stated interval.
I do not much like section 2—though my objections are based on sound reasons and not unsound reasons, like those of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North—but I shall certainly support the order on the basis that this is a temporary provision designed to meet an exceptional situation.

Mr. Brittan: Dealing first with the general observations that have been made about the nature of this legislation, largely for the reasons that have just been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), I simply find it quite impossible to accept that this legislation, regrettable though it is, can possibly be described as a great inroad into civil liberties, as the hon. Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) described it. That is a travesty of what we have been doing, and the steps that have been taken to deal with the very serious problems arising from the emergency measures belie that accusation.
In answering the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley), with his quotations from Dicey, I am content to pray in aid the latter-day Blackstone from Grantham.
I turn to some of the points mentioned. I was asked whether the courts are granting requests for special directions requiring production. Our survey of 50 courts confirmed the impression that requests for special direction under section 2 are being granted in the overwhelming majority of cases. The 50 courts that we surveyed granted 371 such requests in the week 6–12 December and refused only six. That puts the matter substantially in perspective.
The hon. Member for Halifax asked particularly about the five establishments that she said had escalated the dispute and brought it to a further pitch by means of controlled unlocking. The position is that this was action taken in sympathy with the Prison Officers' Association branch at a prison that was involved in a local dispute, and the branches concerned have now withrawn from that action. This followed a number of similar brush fires, as one might call them, on the fringes of the main dispute, in which a local escalation of the action has been followed by a withdrawal of that action when a local solution has been found.
I was also asked by the hon. Lady about escapes. I am able to give rather more information about that than at one time had seemed possible. The latest information available is that throughout England and Wales 95 prisoners have escaped from police cells since the start of the prison officers' dispute. Seventy-three of those have been recaptured. There have been no escapes from the camp and the prison that are administered largely by the Army.
I was asked about the effect of the dispute on the population in custody and the reasons for the drop in that population. We are examining those reasons, but at the moment it is possible only to make a few preliminary observations. About 45 per cent. of the change can be attributed to a drop in the remand population, but until we have more information we do not know to what extent that is due to increase in the grant of bail or reduction in the number of proceedings initiated, and, of course, both of those are possibilities within the figures that I have given.
The rest of the change is largely due to a drop in the population sentenced to terms of 18 months or less. Included in this group are those in prison because of the non-payment of fines. The reduction in their numbers accounts for between 15 and 20 per cent. of the total, but until some of the routine returns from the courts and police forces are available and analysed it is not possible to do more than speculate about the reasons behind the changes.
The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) asked about books and education and other such provision in police cells. I am afraid that that kind of provision can only be on an ad hoc basis and will be patchy in the extreme. That is one of the consequences of the prison dispute and the effect of the action taken by the Prison Officers' Association. We have never pretended that that action is anything other than damaging to conditions for prisoners, and that is why we are as anxious as everyone else that the rnatter should be brought to a head as quickly as possible.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: This is a relatively small but nevertheless serious point, because it is something that the Government can deal with. Given that the dispute has continued for so tong and may continue further, it is important for the Minister to realise that a little thing like making books or games, or other recreation, available to prisoners can make a significant difference to their morale. Can he not now give an assurance that he will see that that is done? It is perfectly possible and it is within his power to see that such provision is made and not to persist with the present position, which he complacently acknowledges is patchy.

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman is underestimating the difficulties of doing what he says. It just is not possible to expect that those who are in police cells for what we hope will be a limited period should have the same facilities as they would have in prison. We should pay tribute to the police for the efforts that they are making to look after the prisoners who are in cells that were not designed and are not suitable for imprisonment for substantial periods.

Mr. Soley: This is an extremely serious point. The prisoners have been in the cells in many cases for 10 weeks, locked up and unable to go out for a significant time. That has an incredibly destructive effect on their personalities. Surely, it is unacceptable for us merely to say that we can do no more than is already being done. Even at the general social welfare level we are likely to make them worse for when they come out, and not better.

Mr. Brittan: I said that provision has to be on a local basis to the extent that that is possible. We are concerned here with a very wide distribution of police stations with cells and it is, therefore, not possible, within the confines of a dispute such as this, to make comprehensive provision in the way that the hon. Gentleman would wish. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will make his point to the Prison Officers' Association and explain to them one of the consequences of the action that they have taken. [Interruption.]The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that he has done so. I am grateful to him for saying that. If I have misunderstood his comment from a sedentary position, that only goes to show one of the disadvantages of that position.
I hope that the House will feel that I have been forthcoming in the information I have given. I have provided a considerable amount of detail, which has illustrated the maxim that the more one gives the more one is asked for. I treat that as a gesture of confidence in that it is thought possible to give information of a complicated nature on a fragmented situation over the country.

Mr. Soley: What about the mentally disordered?

Mr. Brittan: The hon. Gentleman, again from a sedentary position, asks about the mentally disordered. I am afraid that it is not possible to produce figures for those in police cells in that respect.
Having attempted to answer the points that have been raised to the extent that information is available, I hope that the House will agree that it is right that the order should now be passed.

Question put:—

The House divided:Ayes 95, Noes 31.

Division No. 33]
[10·10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Major, John


Ancram, Michael
Marlow, Tony


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Mather, Carol


Berry, Hon Anthony
Mayhew, Patrick


Best, Keith
Mellor, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Biggs-Davison, John
Moate, Roger


Blackburn, John
Myles, David


Body, Richard
Neale, Gerrard


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Needham, Richard


Brinton, Tim
Nelson, Anthony


Brittan, Leon
Newton, Tony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Normanton, Tom


Buck, Antony
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Percival, Sir lan


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Chapman, Sydney
Rhodes James, Robert


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Cockeram, Eric
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Colvin, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Cope, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Crouch, David
Silvester, Fred


Dean, Paul (North Somerest)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Dover, Denshore
Speller, Tony


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Stanbrook, lvor


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Dykes, Hugh
Stradling Thomas, J.


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Taylor, Teddy (S' end E)


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Tebbit, Norman


Fookes, Miss Janet
Thompson, Donald


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Waddington, David


Gorst, John
Walker, B. (Perth)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Walter, Gary


Greenway, Harry
Ward, John


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Warren, Kenneth


Hawksley, Warren
Wheeler, John


Henderson, Barry
Wickenden, Keith


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Winterton, Nicholas


Lawrence, Ivan
Wolfson, Mark


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lester Jim (Beeston)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Mr. John Wakeham and


Macfarlane, Neil
Lord James Douglas-




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Beith, A. J.
Johnson, Russel (Inverness)


Buchan, Norman
Kerr, Russell


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cook, Robin F.
McCartney, Hugh


Dixon, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dubs, Alfred
Magee, Bryan


English, Michael
Maxton, John


Flannery, Martin
Maynard, Miss Joan


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Hamilton W. W (C'tral Fife)
Penhaligon, David


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hogg, N (E Dunb't'nshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Home Robertson, John
Ross, Stephen (lsle of Wight)






Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)
Mr. Clive Soley and


Wigley Dafydd
Mr. Bob Cryer.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980 (Continuance No. 2) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 9 December, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With the agreement of the House, I propose to put the Question on the motions relating to the 10 statutory instruments together.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

Orders of the Day — APPLE AND PEAR DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

That the draft Apple and Pear Development Council (Amendment) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 11 November 1980 in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Orders of the Day — HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act (Variation of Financial Limit) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 24 November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — COMPANIES

That the Companies (Fees) Regulations 1980 (S.I, 1980, No. 1749), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — FISHING INDUSTRY

That the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 (Relaxation of Time Limits) Order 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26 November, be approved.

That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Variation) Scheme 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26 November, be approved.

That the White Fish Authority (Research and Development Grants) Order 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 November, be approved.

Orders of the Day — INCOME TAX

That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Denmark) Order 1980 be made in the form of a draft laid before this House on 24 November.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation (Taxes on Income) (Netherlands) Order 1980 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24 November.

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Norway) Order 1980 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24 November.

That an humble Address be presented to Her majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (The Gambia) Order 1980 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 24 November.—[Mr. Wakeham]

Question agreed to.

Addresses to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — Petition

Animals (Experiments)

Mr. A. J. Beith: With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, I beg leave to present a petition. It reads as follows:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
The Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
SHEWETH—
(1) that under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 it is lawful to perform painful experiments on living animals in the course of medical and scientific research;
(2) that such use of living animals by mankind is no longer acceptable;
WHEREFORE your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will in considering support for medical and scientific research give full emphasis to the urgent need to develop research techniques which render unnecessary the use of living animals.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever ray, etc.
The petition has been signed by over 3,800 people, almost all of whom are residents of Northumberland and Tyneside. The widespread support for the petition reflects the fact that there is considerable concern not only among those who have always rejected the use of animals in experiments but also among the larger number who accept that some experiments involving animals may be necessary.
There is widespread agreement that public policy on animal experiments should be reviewed and very strong support for the proposal of the petitioners that a greater effort should be made to develop research techniques that avoid the use of living animals. I am happy to associate myself with that objective.

I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Blood Transfusion Service

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. Martin Flannery: I have just been looking at the December issue of Medical World, which is a journal for health workers and health students. It is produced by members of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. I happen to be the chairman of the parliamentary committee of that union.
There is great public fear about the blood transfusion service. It is possible—I thought that it might happen tonight—that Granada Television would reflect that concern in a programme. An article in Medical World states:
Our blood must not be put up for sale.
The subheading states:
Opposition grows to the Government threat to privatise the blood service.
Many have become so concerned that I decided to raise this issue in an Adjournment debate. In that way, the Minister can allay our fears. Indeed, I hope that he does so.
It is obvious that when a person sells his or her blood he or she does so because there is nothing else to sell. It is macabre to say the least. Our blood transfusion service


is voluntary. We are proud of it, and it serves the needs of our people. There is an expanding need for blood, blood plasma and kindred substances.
On 6 August this year, the Minister for Health declared that he was investigating the possibility of private industry collaborating in the redevelopment of the blood products laboratory at Elstree, where many members of my union work. They have observed certain things while working there. The Minister added that he had not formulated any plans. I therefore want to raise the whole question of the blood transfusion service, which is very serious for everyone.
The treatment of blood disorders or the treatment of diseases or injuries with blood products has advanced dramatically in the past decade. There is now the opportunity to save more lives and to help more people to live normal lives than ever before.
It is a tragedy and a disgrace that under-investment and diffuse administration have combined to create a situation whereby the facilities have not kept up with the technological advances. The Minister appears still to be considering a "solution" which could undermine the whole system of voluntary blood donation.
How has that situation arisen? Blood that is collected from volunteer donors by the regional blood transfusion service, if not used directly, is reduced to plasma and sent to the blood products laboratory, which, as I said, is in Elstree, on the outskirts of London. It is there fractionated to produce such products as factor VIII concentrate for the treatent of haemophilia. In the country there are about 3,000 people whose blood will not clot and who need that concentrate. There is also factor IX and immunoglobulins for immunisation, and so on. Such terms are new to many people, including myself. Those products are distributed as needed to the regions.
However, a serious lack of investment in the laboratory has meant that it is unable to keep up with the demand for those products. About £4 million a year is spent on importing factor VII, for instance, mainly from America and Austria. There is need for large investment in the laboratory. From the facts that I have been shown, I believe that it needs between £20 million and £30 million. We are aware that there is a shortage of money, but there is a great humanitarian need for the laboratory to be brought up to the required standards of health and safety and to achieve self-sufficiency in blood products. There will also probably need to be more investment in the national transfusion service in order to ensure that the required level of supply is maintained.
Past under-investment is partly the result of uncoordinated administration in the service. For example, 15 transfusion centres are organised on a regional basis. The blood products laboratory was administered from 1954 to 1978 by the Medical Research Council and the Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine on behalf of the DHSS. Since 1978, it has been administered for an interim period by the North-West Thames regional health authority on behalf of the DHSS. The bodies that administered it have never been those with their fingers on the purse strings. Those who realise the importance of investment have had to put their claims in the hat with the many other competing claims that exist, especially today, when we are surrounded by a million cuts.
The under-investment is false economy. As we are not self-sufficient in those products, we spend several million pounds each year importing commercial products from

other countries. Apart from the loss of foreign currency that could much better be spent in Britain to improve our facilities, the National Health Service has no control over the collection and processing of the blood plasma or blood products obtained from abroad.
One problem is that our main sources—the United States of America and Austria—use paid donors, often from poverty-stricken members of developing countries. Research has shown that blood collected from paid donors is 10 times more likely to contain hepatitis B virus than blood collected from unpaid donors. For example, in the United States many of the people who sell the blood are drunkards and drug addicts—junkies from Skid Row and places of that nature.
Additionally, the World Health Organisation has expressed serious concern over commercial companies' activities interfering with the efforts of these countries to establish efficient national blood transfusion services based on voluntary non-remunerated donations of the kind that we have in this country, which is the policy of the WHO and of the International Red Cross.
The need for more investment in the blood service generally and the blood products laboratory at Elstree in particular is clear, but it is equally clear that this must be funded publicly. Any idea that there could be room for commercial involvement in this area must be rejected immediately, not just because of matters of principle about private sector involvement in the Health Service—although that is important—but because of the realities confronting us.
Commercial companies exist not to hand out gifts to anybody but to make profits, and they are not particularly renowned for fighting to invest in public sector areas where the present Government, or any Government for that matter, have under-invested. If a commercial company, were to invest in the blood products laboratory, it would inevitably want some return for its money. That could lead to blood products mainly being bought abroad, with all the concomitant problems that that implies, because it was cheaper, and the prices of blood products in this country would increase considerably, thus putting an extra burden on NHS expenditure, and pressure would increase for blood products to be sold abroad to recoup some of the costs of production.
The most serious effect could be an undermining of the voluntary blood donor system in this country. Donors might be unwilling to give blood freely if there were commercial involvement in the process. It is more than likely that honest folk who are dedicated to this service would withdraw in the knowledge that their blood was to be used commercially. It sounds grim and terrible, but I believe that the conscience of our people will be outraged if they read this debate, unless the Minister gives a categoric denial to what I am implying.
It might appear more economic to pay donors than to invest the necessary money to improve the national transfusion service. We realise how difficult it is for followers of Tory philosophy to understand that many people are prepared to give away something for nothing—blood in this instance—but the whole structure of the blood transfusion and blood fractionation service depends on this selflessness. It would be criminal for Tory short-sightedness to destroy it.
The only way to ensure the development of the blood services in line with demand is a commitment to immediate investment under a new unified structure. The


Minister must make a clear statement now whether he is prepared to risk the destruction of the voluntary blood donor system, and he must allay the fears among the general public, the medical profession and kindred workers by a categoric denial of any handing over to private business and the profit motive. In particular, is he prepared, first, to release the necessary resources to allow Britain to work towards self-sufficiency in all blood products; secondly, to support a restructuring of the various elements so that there is one unified structure; thirdly, to prevent any commercial blood donor centres or fractionation centres being set up in Britain; and, lastly, to ban the export for profit of blood collected from non-remunerated donors—in other words, voluntary blood donors—in this country?
It may be that our fears are unfounded, but we believe that they are not unfounded and that there has been a withdrawal by the Government from a position that they were steadily taking up and which many of our members witnessed taking place before them. If our fears are unfounded, the Government should make it clear that commercial interests will not intrude on the voluntary system and that the necessary money will be forthcoming to ensure that the profit motive is excluded from the British blood transfusion service. Any other decision will result in public outrage and a drop in the number of volunteers who freely donate their blood. Will the Minister give us such assurances?

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) for providing us with an opportunity to discuss the many facets of the blood transfusion service—a service that could be of vital importance to any of us. I believe that I am able to give him the assurances that he seeks.
Before I turn to the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised about the blood products laboratory at Elstree, I should like to say a little about the structure of the national blood transfusion service, in order to place the laboratory and its work in context. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, understand that I shall not consider the Scottish or Northern Irish services, which are the responsibilities of my right hon. Friends. The Welsh service, although the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, has been for a long time more closely associated with the English service.
As the hon. Member will know, each regional health authority in England is responsible for meeting the transfusion requirements of its hospitals and, with the exception of two Thames regions, which have shared arrangements, each region has its own transfusion centre. There is one centre in Wales. A regional transfusion centre's main tasks are to recruit donors and to collect blood; then to group, test and issue that blood.
It is a service run by Health Service professionals but, I think, unique in its dependency on the willingness of the many thousands of donors to provide the raw material in which it largely deals. It is their willingness freely to donate their blood that makes the United Kingdom's blood transfusion service the envy of much of the world. One has only to look at countries that are now moving away from paid donor schemes to systems based upon voluntary

donation. We are proud of our system and determined to maintain it. We will not even consider an alternative system based on paying donors.
Since 1948, the annual number of donations in England and Wales has risen fourfold, from less than ½ million to almost 2 million. We hope next year to pass the 2 million donation mark for the first time. That in itself would be a considerable achievement.
The hon. Member concentrated on the largest of our central blood laboratories, the blood products laboratory at Elstree, which is the chief source of NHS-made blood products outside Scotland. The laboratory is one of three blood laboratories funded directly by the DHSS and serving England and Wales, the blood group reference laboratory in Chelsea and the plasma fractionation laboratory, BPL's "sister" laboratory in Oxford, being the other two.
The blood products laboratory currently processes about 160,000 litres of plasma a year, producing from it a range of excellent products, including factor VIII for the treatment of haemophiliacs, albumin used in the treatment of burns, and a number of immunoglobulins—for example anti-Dimmunoglobulin—for the prevention of rhesus disease in babies. In addition, it has led the way in many aspects of research in blood products. The director, Dr. Richard Lane, heads a team of scientific and technical staff, some of whom have international reputations in this specialised and complex field.
The laboratory, however, was not designed to meet today's standards of pharmaceutical manufacturing, nor could we expect that it should have been. Fractionation technology has changed considerably since the 1950s and the demand for blood products has increased beyond what could reasonably have been predicted.
Last year, the Department's medicines inspectors thoroughly examined the laboratory and its processes. Its report pointed to a number of areas where remedial work was necessary as a matter of urgency if production was to be maintained and increased. On receipt of its report, my Department held discussions with the laboratory's director on BPL's needs. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health visited the laboratory in March and announced shortly afterwards an upgrading programme at a capital cost of over £1 ¼million to improve conditions at BPL and to make possible an increase in production.
This upgrading work is now well under way. One of its important components, a 5,000 cubic feet modular cold store, has already come into service, enabling the laboratory to store increased amounts of plasma received from regional transfusion centres. Also included in this programme are some modifications to the coagulation factor laboratory, the installation of a range of new equipment and extension to existing buildings, including a new loading bay and terminal processing area. Some of the new equipment being installed will also enable the laboratory to improve the yield of products from the plasma it receives. As a result of this new investment, by the end of 1982 BPL is expected to double its output of factor VIII to 30 million international units and to increase albumin production by some 60 per cent.
However, I should stress that even with this substantial increase in production, and with whatever help the plasma fractionation laboratory may be able to offer, it will still be necessary for health authorities to buy certain blood products from commercial sources. I shall return to this later.
I understand that it is the hon. Gentleman's intention to visit the laboratory with a delegation from the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs later this week. It is always useful for hon. Members to see such facilities at first hand. I am sure that the hon. Member and the other hon. Members accompanying him will find the visit instructive and will find much to admire in the laboratory's work. On a slightly more controversial note, I regret that ASTMS members sitting on the Conservative Benches are precluded from attending the meetings of the ASTMS parliamentary branch, of which the hon. Gentleman is chairman.
The BPI.' s work is a credit to the NHS, and I am happy to pay tribute to the staff for the way in which production has steadily increased over the years.
I said earlier that BPL was not designed to meet today's demands, and there is a need for a new fractionation facility. The hon. Gentleman referred to rumours that BPL was to be handed over to a commercial company to develop. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Health made clear last month, this is not the case, and I am glad of the opportunity to reaffirm this clearly and unequivocally this evening.
Given the likely cost of redeveloping the laboratory, and given that a manufacturing plant of this kind is rather different from the general run of NHS activities, it was only right that we should examine a number of options concerning the longer-term development of BPL. These included the possibility of some form of collaboration with industry. It was never a secret that this was under consideration—the hon. Gentleman referred to the question on this topic that my hon. Friend answered on 6 August. After exploratory discussions with a number of companies, we decided—and I say this without intending any adverse reflection on industry—that there was no place for a commercial company in the management of BPL. This decision was conveyed to the director and his staff on the day that it was taken. I appreciate that while exploratory discussions were held the staff of BPL worked in an atmosphere of uncertainty regarding their future, but in considering a development of this size we had to look thoroughly at all the available options. It would have been irresponsible not to do so.
The hon. Gentleman spoke rather deprecatingly of privatising blood. If he does not consider that blood should be privately owned, there is not much left.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the management of the Elstree unit. I recognise the need to establish a management system there that is commensurate with the laboratory and its work. The matter is being given urgent attention, and the views of the staff's representatives will be sought at the appropriate time.
Another of the hon. Gentleman's topics was the safety record, with particular reference to imported blood. The blood transfusion service, including the BPL, has a very good safety record. All donations are stringently tested for hepatitis B, as is all plasma sent to the BPL. Even with high-standard cross-matching procedures, occasional reactions to transfusion, normally minor, are inevitable, but I am not aware of any deaths directly attributable to blood transfusion or blood products.
We are urgently considering the many other questions that arise in deciding who best to develop the blood products laboratory to meet the foreseeable need of the NHS. We have to look, obviously, at the extent of rebuilding and expansion necessary at BPL itself, the cost

of which may be considerable—an obvious difficulty at a time when, in the nation's interests, we are seeking to reduce the overall level of public expenditure and there are so many competing demands. But the matter is more complicated than that. We have to be sure that plasma can be made available in sufficient quantities so that we do not build a laboratory which could not be fully utilised. That may need more blood donors and more capacity in the regional transfusion centres which provide the plasma in the first place.
This is one aspect of the service that our Advisory Committee on the National Blood Transfusion Service is examining. We also have a working party, which is looking at future blood fractionation technology so that we can redevelop BPL in the most advanced and efficient way. I am glad to say that this working party, whose recommendations are essential before design work can begin, has already made excellent progress and hopes to report early next year. Finally, we are working with Scotland to establish the extent to which the Scottish fractionation plant in Edinburgh could contribute to the needs of other parts of the United Kingdom.
Much of this work has been going on for some time. I would not have the House think that we had held it up while we had our discussions with industry, but there is still work to be done before we can commission plans for the longer-term redevelopment of the laboratory. We are getting on with that work urgently, but I am not in a position to tell the House tonight when we shall be ready to start planning the necessary changes to the laboratory itself—I emphasise that I am talking about changes quite apart from the £1 ¼million that is already being spent on upgrading—or how long it will be before we could start building. It will be evident, however, that it will unavoidably be several years before the redevelopment is completed and that this would be the case even if we could provide tomorrow the necessary capital funds.
I have noted the early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Hillsborough and signed by over 40 hon. Members. I hope that I have answered the question of the commercial management of the blood products laboratory to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction, although I would point out that there may well be scope for mutually beneficial arrangements between industry and the laboratory—for example, in the development of new manufacturing processes. We have already seen this at BPL, with regard to development work on an improved technique for factor VIII production.
The motion also refers to the declaration of the twenty-eighth World Health Assembly, "Utilisation and Supply of Human Blood and Blood Products", which, in essence, urged WHO member States to try to be self-sufficient in blood and blood products. The hon. Gentleman referred to that. The principle of self-sufficiency is one that the Government fully endorse. Quite apart from the possible risk of hepatitis from imported products, particularly those manufactured from plasma supplied by paid donors, the very fact that products are imported—unless they come from a country that produces an excess of such products—raises difficult moral issues concerning trade in blood.
But self-sufficiency must inevitably be a long-term aim. Our first responsibility is to meet the need of our patients. We have found, not only here but elsewhere in the health and personal social services, that demand is a very elastic concept. The more one tries to meet it, the


more it seems to grow. Thus, while BPL will shortly double its output of factor VIII, it will not be able to meet all the NHS demand for that product. Self-sufficiency has to be approached from both sides. We need to look seriously at demand for the products. Are we using too much? Are we using them effectively? We also need to look at supply. How much can we afford to supply? Can the NHS provide enough plasma to manufacture products in this quantity? This is one of the issues which the recently appointed Advisory Committee on the National Blood Transfusion Service will be asked to look at. Its advice will be invaluable.
On a slightly more domestic note, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be interested to learn that over the past four years the percentage increase in the number of donors in the Trent region, whose transfusion centre is situated in Sheffield, was almost twice the national average. It speaks highly of the motivation of the people in our society when so many are prepared to give their time and their blood to help others.
I am sure that the House would wish me to take this opportunity to thank publicly all donors and to encourage others to come forward. The demand for blood and its products continues to rise, and I am hopeful that, supported by my Department's extensive national campaigns to attract donors, we can continue the upward trend in the number of donations received.
As I said a few minutes ago, with the exception of the central blood laboratories, the blood transfusion service is an integral part of the NHS, and each region is responsible for its own regional transfusion service. Decisions on the level of funding for any particular RTC are, therefore, for the regional health authority concerned, in the light of local demands and priorities, and we have not issued guidance on this aspect of service provision.
It is, of course, the case that the transfusion service's importance has been recognised in RHA funding decisions. Two regions in England are planning substantial expenditure on new centres. At constant—November 1978—prices, revenue expenditure in England and Wales on transfusion centres increased from £19·2 million in 1974–75 to £23·7 million in 1979–80—a rise of over 23 per cent. in real terms. I very much hope that I have been able to give some assurance to the hon. Gentleman in the remarks that I have just made.
I am pleased that the blood transfusion service has received so much attention in recent months. The service's quiet efficiency has meant that some people have taken it for granted. That must not be allowed to happen. It plays a vital role in the NHS—a role that the Government will continue to encourage and support.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes to Eleven o' clock.